Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
From the Catechism:
He does profess the dogmas of the church which would include that Jesus is the son of God, but he does have very liberal ecumenical views , but surely he doesn't speak those ex cathedra and nobody interprets them as infallible or changes in church doctrine.
Yes it is liberal , but drunkeness is considered one of the seven deadly sins in the form of gluttony.
He's possibly an agnostic or a pure deist. He certainly doesn't subscribe to the hardcore christian faith.
You haven't been following Pope Francis then. He has an unbelievable humility, forgives all trespasses, prays for everyone in the world (constantly asked for prayers as well saying "he needs them"), embraces all people as brothers and sisters and keeps all of the church doctrines in place. Not once has he changed a doctrine only given special permission to make it easier for people to obtain forgiveness.
Where did John claim as such? Please
You mean the pope?
And how did you draw this conclusion? I have heard him speak many times, and there simply is nothing that I have heard him say that should lead to that. The closest thing that you might have confused is that he, and RCC theology in general, has always taught that some narratives may include symbolism of one type or another, but that's rather obvious even if an elementary school child were to read them.
It was an observation of serp777 actually which I questioned to know as to what does he mean with that.
I misunderstood that this was whom you were responding to, so sorry about that.
Never-mind, it is OK.
Please quote from the NT Gospels where it is mentioned by name that John was an eye-witness of the incident of Crucifixion. Will one please?
Why do you think God's personal name was removed from many bible translations, and would you/do you willingly support or condone the use of a bible that has God's personal name removed?I am well versed in Catholic Apologetics for I spent a year in a monastery studying it all.
I put this in the debate section that you may challenge and fire your arrows at the Pope!
To add it now in the Bible as JW's have done is most disrespectful also when it was not written already in the NT Gospels or the Torah.
I think this is what happened: a group of honest hearted bible scholars went back to the oldest manuscripts available and when their translation of the bible was produced they kept the divine name Jehovah where it belongs instead of removing it and replacing it with LORD like some chose to do, and you're saying this is the offense? So removing God's name from his word is okay in your eyes? What makes you say JWs added God's name to the NT?
As has been told you already, and yet you keep returning back to it, "Jehovah" is not the correct name because there's no "J" sound in Hebrew. Why do you harp on other people and yet you continually don't go about to correct your own error?