Featured Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

How is it not logical. BobRyan said

to which Westministerman said

to which you responded

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.

I think its pretty logical.

 

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

 

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]

 

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 s[SIZE=2]aints who gav[SIZE=2]e their life for Christ".

[SIZE=2]To "give the [SIZE=2]Church saints" me[SIZE=2]ans that now something is officially sanctioned, [SIZE=2]officially approved by the RCC - that was not approved before.

[SIZE=2]Those familiar with the "communion of the Saints" might [SIZE=2]know what that is.

[SIZE=2]in Christ,

[SIZE=2]Bob[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

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

 

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.

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.