As a fan of much of Vocab's work regarding the Hebrew Israelites and as a Roman Catholic, a couple things stood out to me.
1. "Benedict resigned from the papacy in 2013. He was succeeded by the significantly less conservative Pope Francis, whose more progressivist vision has undone some of Benedict’s passionate labor and theological work."
Describing Pope Francis as "less conservative" is a huge understatement. And this implies that he's still on the "conservative" side of the aisle, which he's obviously not. Also, "has undone some of Benedict's passionate labor and theological work" is also a huge understatement. Maybe this is inside baseball stuff for Protestants, but there is a world of difference between the two popes. They couldn't be more different is many respects.
2. "Whatever our reaction, we Protestants must remember this true conviction: that the office of “Pope” is biblically without justification.
Seems a bit hypocritical coming from a Protestant. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Sola Scriptura is totally without biblical justification, if we're being fair here. As a matter of fact, Protestants wouldn't even have a Bible had they not got it from Catholics first.
Agree 100% w your first point. I was working to be as gentle as possible in this post. That is why I did employ severe understatement. You are correct.
On your second point, of course we won't agree. It's historically incorrect to act as if Rome in any way "gave" the world the Bible. One, Rome had ZERO to do with the Old Testament. Yahweh and the Hebrews took care of that. Two, the Roman institution didn't exist during the period of inscripturation, either.
As a fan of much of Vocab's work regarding the Hebrew Israelites and as a Roman Catholic, a couple things stood out to me.
1. "Benedict resigned from the papacy in 2013. He was succeeded by the significantly less conservative Pope Francis, whose more progressivist vision has undone some of Benedict’s passionate labor and theological work."
Describing Pope Francis as "less conservative" is a huge understatement. And this implies that he's still on the "conservative" side of the aisle, which he's obviously not. Also, "has undone some of Benedict's passionate labor and theological work" is also a huge understatement. Maybe this is inside baseball stuff for Protestants, but there is a world of difference between the two popes. They couldn't be more different is many respects.
2. "Whatever our reaction, we Protestants must remember this true conviction: that the office of “Pope” is biblically without justification.
Seems a bit hypocritical coming from a Protestant. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Sola Scriptura is totally without biblical justification, if we're being fair here. As a matter of fact, Protestants wouldn't even have a Bible had they not got it from Catholics first.
With love and charity.
Agree 100% w your first point. I was working to be as gentle as possible in this post. That is why I did employ severe understatement. You are correct.
On your second point, of course we won't agree. It's historically incorrect to act as if Rome in any way "gave" the world the Bible. One, Rome had ZERO to do with the Old Testament. Yahweh and the Hebrews took care of that. Two, the Roman institution didn't exist during the period of inscripturation, either.
~VOCAB
1. true true.
2. no argument? well, that's nothing an ad hominem attack (with love and charity, of course) plus a few dishonest claims won't fix!