Jack Van Impe Challenging Pope Francis to Debate!!

[BreadOfLife]

I don't need any encyclical or papal bull to interpret Jorge's words. He plainly says non-believers just have to worry about not violating their conscience when it comes to the question of whether they can receive mercy - I realize that covering up for the actions/words of priests is intrinsically tied to papal membership, but when it's straight from the "JORGE'S MOUTH" there's no covering up that, right?

As usual - YOU don’t need any context or point of reference because it’s your job as an ignorant anti-Catholic to take things out of context. You wouldn’t have a point if you didn’t do that.

Remember – being an empty barrel may make you louder – but it doesn’t make you right . . .

 

[JohnPaul]

The mainstream media made much hay over Pope Francis’ July 2013 remarks in which he said, in response to a reporter’s question about an alleged “gay lobby” within the Vatican, “Who am I to judge?”

The MSM misinterpreted his comment as blanket approval for homosexual acts, and their headlines reflected their misunderstanding. Even now, whenever there’s a news story about the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality, reporters are quick to mention that Pope Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” about homosexuals.

However, as is often the case, the media didn’t bother to look at the Pope’s words in context.

Pope Francis said, in full,

A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation — we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.

A catechized Catholic who reads these words knows that they are perfectly in line with Church teaching. Pope Francis essentially just restated paragraph 2358 of the Catechism, which says,

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

When Pope Francis said “Who am I to judge him?”, he was referring to paragraph 1861:

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. (emphasis mine)

Pope Francis was referring to the judgment of persons with his “Who am I to judge?” comment. He was not saying that a person’s moral acts can’t be judged, because (as he knows) the Catechism says otherwise:

Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil. (CCC 1749)

Scripture is also very clear on the fact that not only can we judge, we are actually called to judge.

“Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:12-13)

and

“Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!” (1 Cor. 6:2-3).

When Jesus said “Judge not, lest you be judged,” he wasn’t condemning all judgment. Rather, He was condemning rash or unjust judgment. He was not telling Christians that they could not evaluate acts and behavior of others according to the moral law – because if that was what He meant, He would have been violating his own dictate. To quote blogger and apologist Jimmy Akin, “If it is wrong to make moral judgments regarding the behavior of others then it would be wrong to judge others for judging!”

Many who quote those words from the Sermon on the Mount in order to condemn someone who is judging fail to read the rest of the passage:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

Notice that Jesus says that one can take the speck out his brother’s eye! However, he cautions that the person doing the judging has to make sure that their judgments are just, because God will judge hold that person to their own standards.

In the same vein, the Church cautions against rash judgment, a form of unjust judgment, which is defined in the Catechism as “assum[ing] as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.” To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

“Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.”
Yes, Catholics Can Judge! - Catholic Stand

Thank you for taking the time to explain, Epostle. By the way I am not anti-Catholic or anti any denomination, I love all my Christian brethren, not that you accused me of being such, just want to make that clear.

Thank you brother.

 

[Phoneman777]

As usual - YOU don’t need any context or point of reference because it’s your job as an ignorant anti-Catholic to take things out of context. You wouldn’t have a point if you didn’t do that.

Remember – being an empty barrel may make you louder – but it doesn’t make you right . . .

Sorry, but there's no other way to interpret the words of Jorge the Whore-head: that unbelievers are eligible for mercy if they're careful to live according to their conscience.

Which is classic papal hermedookey - he's seeking to have Romans 2:14-15 apply to "unbelievers" which the context proves the passage absolutely does not.

 

[JohnPaul]

Sorry, but there's no other way to interpret the words of Jorge the Whore-head: that unbelievers are eligible for mercy if they're careful to live according to their conscience.

Which is classic papal hermedookey - he's seeking to have Romans 2:14-15 apply to "unbelievers" which the context proves the passage absolutely does not.

Doesn’t it say in the Bible that only those who believe in Jesus Christ have salvation?

So no I don’t believe that atheists or anyone else who doesn’t believe in Christ would have mercy, salvation and therefore would not enter heaven.

I don’t know what Pope Francis is trying to accomplish.

 

[Nancy]

Sorry, but there's no other way to interpret the words of Jorge the Whore-head: that unbelievers are eligible for mercy if they're careful to live according to their conscience.

Which is classic papal hermedookey - he's seeking to have Romans 2:14-15 apply to "unbelievers" which the context proves the passage absolutely does not.

You sure have a way with words, Phone. Whore-head, hermedookey? Ahaha, love it.

 

[Earburner]

You seem to think the Beast is the catholic church.

It is not.

The Beast is the UNION of the catholic church and the secular state. That's why Revelation 17, which is the culmination of all Antichrist symbolism given up to this point, depicts a woman riding the beast, just as in the OT when wicked queen Jezebel who worshiped Baal controlled weak, obedient Ahab who was king over the kingdom.

What? I never said the RCC was anything! I am just pointing out the mere fact there are many who do blur the lines of gender, when trying to figure out who the Beast is and who is Babylon the Great.
And when they do try to be figure it out, they always make the error that the Pope is "THE" Antichrist, which is their own words, born out of fabricating long winded tales from Daniel, of which is a closed book, as in fulfilled, ever since Jesus first appeared.
.
I also pointed out that those symbols represent two separate entities, and that "she" (Babylon the Great) is NOT "riding" the Beast,
but rather the Beast is "carrying" "her"- KJV Bible.
Can you discern the difference?
.
So the age old question remains: who is
Mystery, Babylon the Great, the MOTHER OF harlots? (first key word: "Mystery")
Ans. It's not the Pope or the RCC.
It's not Protestant America.
It's not capitalism, or the global economic system.
.
It's Jerusalem/Israel (the Great city).
She once was a church of God (called out ones).
SHE IS the woman that IS fallen, which was in 70AD by the Roman Titus.
IN HER is found all the blood of the prophets, the saints, and all who are slain upon the earth.
.
The Israel we see today is a falsehood (Zionism), created by the Rothschilds and the Illuminati.
Go ahead, Google it!

 

[epostle]

Doesn’t it say in the Bible that only those who believe in Jesus Christ have salvation?

So no I don’t believe that atheists or anyone else who doesn’t believe in Christ would have mercy, salvation and therefore would not enter heaven.

I don’t know what Pope Francis is trying to accomplish.

Just as main stream media deceived you into thinking the Pope was endorsing homosexual behavior, they also deceived the public over what he actually said about atheists. He must agree with all previous teachings opposing atheism.

If someone does not come to believe in God because of stubbornness or refusal to give up selfish desires, then such a person would be culpable for his lack of belief.

If, however, because of circumstances a sincere person is prevented from coming to belief in God, then his lack of faith is called invincible ignorance, and such a person would not be considered culpable.

As Pope Pius XI noted in Quanto conficiamur moerore:
It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, *may*, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in his supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

In one section of his homily, Pope Francis stated: “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Your questions can be summed up under three categories:

1) How can atheists be saved?

2) Is Pope Francis describing some kind of “anonymous Christianity” at work in the world today?

3) What are the implications of the Pope’s homily for daily living?

I have prepared some brief thoughts and responses to these questions. They flow from my own theological studies, from five years living in the Middle East, in a Christian minority in Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt as well as working in Interreligious dialogue with Jews and Muslims for many years. I have also had much to do with atheists and agnostics on secular university campuses in Canada.

1) Always keep in mind the audience and context of Pope Francis’ daily homilies. He is first and foremost a seasoned pastor and preacher who has much experience in reaching people. His words are not spoken in the context of a theological faculty or academy nor in interreligious dialogue or debate. He speaks in the context of the Mass, offering reflections on the Word of God. He is speaking to other Catholics and religious leaders. His knowledge, rooted in deep, Catholic theology and tradition are able to be expressed in a language that everyone can understand and appropriate. This is not a gift given to every pastor and theologian! Is it any wonder why so many people are drawn to Pope Francis’ words? Is it any wonder why so many … read daily homilies of a Pope, discuss them and raise questions about what they read?

2) Pope Francis has no intention of provoking a theological debate on the nature of salvation through his homily or scriptural reflection when he stated that “God has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!” Consider these sections of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that offer the Church’s teaching on who will be “saved” and how:
Does Catholic doctrine teach that atheists go to heaven, too?

IMO, 90% of the media is controlled by Satan who hates the Church. Please don't be in a hurry to form conclusions about the Pope based on what they say.

 

[Phoneman777]

Doesn’t it say in the Bible that only those who believe in Jesus Christ have salvation?

So no I don’t believe that atheists or anyone else who doesn’t believe in Christ would have mercy, salvation and therefore would not enter heaven.

I don’t know what Pope Francis is trying to accomplish.

When it comes to compiling a categorical list of those who will be in the kingdom, we must consider other classes besides those who've specifically named Jesus as their Savior:

• Those who lived during the 2,500 years before the first Jew appeared.
• Those "Gentiles" who "have not the law (but) do by nature the things contained in the law..." which are also predicted to "come from the East and from the West and from the North and from the South and shall sit down in the kingdom of God."
• Those of whom Zechariah in poetic fashion speaks of as saying "What are these wounds in Thine hands?" to which the Wounded One will say, "Those with which I was wounded in the house of My friends."
• Those who were prevented from understanding the Gospel by virtue of a mental condition or developmental limitation.

Is it possible that "the only name by which we must be saved" is wrongly interpreted to enforce a religion of exclusivity of sorts? Yes. The only way to harmonize these bullets and this verse is this:

"The death, burial, and resurrection of the One and only begotten of the Father named Jesus Christ is the only means by which man can be saved - not Shiva, not Buddha, not the Dali Lama, not Allah, not Brahma, not Zoroaster, not Vishan, not Ramtha, not nobody."

 

[Phoneman777]

You sure have a way with words, Phone. Whore-head, hermedookey? Ahaha, love it.

You're too kind, Nancy! Just trying to get m' point across LOL

 

[Phoneman777]

What? I never said the RCC was anything!

Correction: you seem to think that we Historicists assign the identity of the Beast as the CC. That's what I meant to say. We don't. We say it is the papacy, the UNION of the catholic church and the secular state.

 

[Nancy]

Correction: you seem to think that we Historicists assign the identity of the Beast as the CC. That's what I meant to say. We don't. We say it is the papacy, the UNION of the catholic church and the secular state.

I believe this too Phoneman. I think it goes more to the "office" or "title" of the role of the Papacy, not the CC. I know too many spirit filled Catholics who IMHO, are saved.
Do you see the 6th head, the one fatally wounded and come back to life a new revived Roman Empire, being the 7th head?

 

[Phoneman777]

I believe this too Phoneman. I think it goes more to the "office" or "title" of the role of the Papacy, not the CC. I know too many spirit filled Catholics who IMHO, are saved.
Do you see the 6th head, the one fatally wounded and come back to life a new revived Roman Empire, being the 7th head?

Bless you! While the seven heads of Revelation 17 are shrouded in mystery, this interpretation seems to satisfy all the demands of the symbolism and includes all the beast characters of Revelation:

Seven Heads:

1. Babylon
2. Medo Persia
3. Greece
4. Rome
5. Papacy
6. "One is" - seemingly wounded papacy (...is not, yet is...) - non religio/political powers run by secret papal societies arising out of the bottomless pit of Revelation 11
7. Image of the Beast - (religio-political confederacy under the lamb-like beast)
8. The Eighth which is of the seven - NWO - (final world confederacy under the papacy)

Of course, you can learn more by watching "A Woman Rides The Beast" on Youtube by W. J. Veith

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry, but there's no other way to interpret the words of Jorge the Whore-head: that unbelievers are eligible for mercy if they're careful to live according to their conscience.

Which is classic papal hermedookey - he's seeking to have Romans 2:14-15 apply to "unbelievers" which the context proves the passage absolutely does not.

Your dishonest responses expose your abject ignoranceof ALL things Catholic.

Not sure what’s more pathetic – your totald or your absolute ignorance . . .

 

[Nancy]

Bless you! While the seven heads of Revelation 17 are shrouded in mystery, this interpretation seems to satisfy all the demands of the symbolism and includes all the beast characters of Revelation:

Seven Heads:

1. Babylon
2. Medo Persia
3. Greece
4. Rome
5. Papacy
6. "One is" - seemingly wounded papacy (...is not, yet is...) - non religio/political powers run by secret papal societies arising out of the bottomless pit of Revelation 11
7. Image of the Beast - (religio-political confederacy under the lamb-like beast)
8. The Eighth which is of the seven - NWO - (final world confederacy under the papacy)

Of course, you can learn more by watching "A Woman Rides The Beast" on Youtube by W. J. Veith

I will check out that video...thanks

 

[Phoneman777]

Your dishonest responses expose your abject ignoranceof ALL things Catholic.

Not sure what’s more pathetic – your totald or your absolute ignorance . . .

I mean no offense, but I must preach against papal errors, DB.

"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no same man ought to raise the question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name." - C. H. Spurgeon

 

[Nancy]

I will check out that video...thanks

Oh yes, also, some say that the EU is the 7th head, already in place for end times. And, the Harlot that sits on 7 Hills...how can that NOT be Rome??! Anyhoo...I will def. check out the vid.

 

[Phoneman777]

I will check out that video...thanks

Or, if you don't have time, feel free to question me about it risk free Differences of opinion shouldn't be a barrier to friendship - unless the friend thinks I should stop breathing or something LOL

 

[BreadOfLife]

I mean no offense, but I must preach against papal errors, DB.

"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no same man ought to raise the question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name." - C. H. Spurgeon

God trumps Charles Spurgeon, Einstein . . .

Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

 

[epostle]

Oh yes, also, some say that the EU is the 7th head, already in place for end times. And, the Harlot that sits on 7 Hills...how can that NOT be Rome??! Anyhoo...I will def. check out the vid.

The Vatican does not sit on any of the 7 hills of Rome, it's on the opposite side of the Tiber River.

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.
Is the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon?

 

[epostle]

It appears the "infallible" SDA are going to dominate another thread with false histories, misrepresentations, hate, and lies. They make videos that scare little children.