"Francis and the Joint Declaration on Human Fraternity: A Public Repudiation of the Catholic Faith"

Rorate Caeli ^ | February 10, 2019 | Dr. John Lamont

[onedoug]

True for his festering anti-Semitism as well?

[Mom MD]

Luther was antisemitic learned well from the Catholic Church of his time. But unlike Catholics our leaders are not assumed to be infallible and we can admit their flaws. That does not lessen the truths of the reformation or negate his other good teachings.

[nobamanomore]

I’ll be so glad when Francis is gone. I’m not sure if he’s really that lost regarding the teaching of the church, or just doesn’t know when to shut up. Sometimes I just think his mouth keeps going when his brain is disengaged.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Catholics do not assume the Pope to be intrinsically infallible, either.

To the question "Is the pope infallible?" the correct Catholic answer (though it seems odd) would be "Mostly, no"--- Which is inevitable since most of what any pope says is, well, not ex cathedra. This means it was not formally proclaimed in such form as to invoke his full authority to make doctrines permanently binding on the whole church.

In 2005 Pope Benedict XVI explained, "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know". Pope John XXIII once stated it with a humorous twist: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".

IF the pope is basically re-stating what was already taught in Scripture, handed down from the Apostles, declared by Ecumenical Councils or the Papal Magisterium of all the previous popes, it's authoritative ---not because this current pope said it, but because it's part of the already established "deposit of Faith". "Public Revelation" per se ended at the death of the last Apostle.

So, here's what happens (LINK) if a pope tries to make an erroneous statement "as if" infallibly. Go ahead and click. It's just 2 minutes, and you'll laugh.

[NKP_Vet]

“This guy is a socialist.”

What he’s not is a Catholic. He’s a heretic who should shave been excommunicated years ago. Every time he opens his mouth he spews nonsense that in no way can be construed as Catholic. The longer he remains pope the longer it’ll take the church to repair itself from the destruction he’s already caused. The worst pope in the last 1000 years or more.

[Campion]

But unlike Catholics our leaders are not assumed to be infallible and we can admit their flaws

"Papal infallibility" merely means that the Pope is protected from teaching error under certain restricted circumstances. It does not mean that he is sinless, perfect, or flawless. It does not even mean that he is preserved from error if the conditiond for an infallible teaching are not met.

[circlecity]

"The pluralism and the diversity of religions, ...are willed by God in His wisdom,"

I don't see how this isn't a direct repudiation of the 1st Commandment. (and pretty much the entire Torah, NT and the entire rest of the bible. How in the world could you justify the entire book of Joshua using this assumption? This is real "whore of Babylon" stuff.

[daniel1212]

So, here's what happens (LINK) if a pope tries to make an erroneous statement "as if" infallibly. Go ahead and click. It's just 2 minutes, and you'll laugh.

A comforting fantasy, for if the Lord slew every pope and councils who asserted error as determined by the only infallible substantive record of what the NT church believed then there would have already been a lot of sudden deaths, while to narrowly restrict this to "infallible" teachings then it means that God allows the teaching of error (by not preventing it by killing) which still requires obedience.

Yet nowhere is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome taught, promised or essential in Scripture, nor that God will kill leadership before they lead the flock astray. Instead, God often raised up men from without the formal magisterium in correction, which is how the NT church began, and which is the very principle Catholicism wars against.

But of course when the basis for what error is rests upon error then there can be no error. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

And the only example I know of in which a pope died just before he officially taught heresy, and which I suspect was an inside job, was the infamous pompous papal attempt by the zealous Pope Sixtus V to make (via the Bull Aeternus Ille, March 1590) his very faulty revision of the Vulgate “the authorized Vulgate of the Tridentine Council,” and excommunicated those who deviated from it.

Thus it was egregious messing with Scripture (though the Vulgate had variant versions and did/does have errors ) that ended up with the pope being killed.

However, Catholics can dismiss papal Bulls from requiring obedience anyway.

[daniel1212]

So what's the Big Deal? When faced with such then RCs just dismiss it as not being formally proclaimed in such form as to invoke his full authority to make doctrines permanently binding on the whole church.

Despite papal teaching such as that states

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

Which in effect means that required obedience can die that death of debatable qualifications (as can whether the pope can be judged guilty of heresy ).

And trying to ascertain which teachings require full assent, and the kind thereof can be exasperating. As a poster on a RC forum dealing with this expressed:

rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task.

But the solution (before Francis at least) he was given was just obey everything:

Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis.

Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31

For the alternative can result in what as one poster wryly stated,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

[Gamecock]

Remember when we were howled down, told there is nothing to see here:

Religions that do not worship the Holy Trinity are false religions,

But there is no big surprise in any of this. I note with interest the Catholic Catechism says nothing about a distinction of the Trinity when is comes to the god Muslims worship. In fact Muslims seem to be good to go!

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Given this I really don't see what the big hulaba is all about. Francis is just reaffirming what the catechism teaches.

[daniel1212]

Your referenced diatribe of non-referenced isolationist out-of-context quotes by the masonic Adam Weishaupt (pseudonym of a senior member of the Pythagorean Illuminati) actually impugns you rather than Luther.

There is enough from the smaller percentage of negative statements by Luther without misrepresenting him, and before setting yourself up for embarrassment do some searching here before your post some more propaganda.

[daniel1212]

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Given this I really don't see what the big hulaba is all about. Francis is just reaffirming what the catechism teaches.

The half is not even close to being told:

Rome is "friendlier" to Jews and Israel than before, but which also means affirming that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, that together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964)

Which is blasphemous. For with Allah, we are not dealing with an utterly ambiguous "unknown god" as in Acts 17, which had no express revelation and could said to be the true God they were looking for. But Allah is much a distinct God, and in the name of this false deity are the contradictory and skewed Biblical stories of the Qur'an, besides adding its own, and which denies the very essence of the gospel, that of the Divine Son of God procuring salvation with His own sinless shed blood! Yet again and again popes comfort Muslims by assuring them they have the true God, while any gospel is largely replaced by platitudes for peace.

Rome says Muslims the worship the same God as Catholics, "the one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth," and "strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan." -Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965

And,

We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an... We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” — Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969.

“I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...

“Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981

“As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985

We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985

Christians and Muslims, together with the followers of the Jewish religion, belong to what can be called ‘the tradition of Abraham.’..Our Creator and our final judge desires that we live together. Our God is a God of peace, who desires peace among those who live according to His commandments. Our God is the holy God who desires that those who call upon Him live in ways that are holy and upright. -John Paul II, address to Islamic leaders of Senegal, Dakar, February 22, 1992 -http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm

In contrast:

Papal–Israel relations

Until 1948 the Pope was motivated by the traditional Vatican opposition to Zionism. Vatican opposition to a Jewish homeland stemmed largely from theological doctrines regarding Judaism.[40] In 1904, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl obtained an audience with Pope Pius X in the hope of persuading the pontiff to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The pope's response was: "Non possumus"--"We cannot." In 1917, Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV, equally refused to support any concept for a Jewish state. Minerbi writes that when a League of Nations mandate were being proposed for Palestine, the Vatican was disturbed by the prospect of a (Protestant) British mandate over the Holy Land, but a Jewish state was anathema to it.[27][41]

On 22 June 1943, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, the Apostolic Delegate to Washington D.C. wrote to US President Franklin Roosevelt, asking him to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. ...

If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would be to interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.

It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before.[42]

The Vatican view of the Near East was dominated by a Cold War perception that Arab Muslims are conservative but religious, whereas Israeli Zionists are modernist but atheists. The Vatican's then Foreign Minister, Domenico Tardini (without being even a bishop, but a close collaborator of Pius XII) said to the French ambassador in November 1957, according to an Israeli diplomatic dispatch from Rome to Jerusalem:

"I have always been of the opinion that there never was an overriding reason for this state to be established. It was the fault of the western states. Its existence is an inherent risk factor for war in the Middle East. Now, Israel exists, and there is certainly no way to destroy it, but every day we pay the price of this error."[45]

by initially siding with Palestinian claims for compensations on political, social and financial levels, the Vatican shaped its Middle Eastern policy since 1948 upon two pillars. One was based on political and theological reservations against Zionism,... the Holy See has also maintained reservations of its own. The more established the Zionist Yishuv became in Mandatory Palestine, the more political reservations the Vatican added to its initial theological inhibitions.[51]

On 26 May 1955, when the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra performed Beethoven's Seventh Symphony at the Vatican as an act of respect for Pius XII, the Vatican still refrained from mentioning the name of the State, preferring instead to describe the orchestra as a collection of "Jewish musicians of fourteen different nationalities."[53]

Paul VI was Pope from 21 June 1963 to 6 August 1978. He strongly defended inter-religious dialogue in the spirit of Nostra Aetate. He was also the first Pope to mention the Palestinian people by name...On 15 January 1973, the Pope met Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir at the Vatican, which was the first meeting between a Pope and an Israeli Prime Minister. At the meeting, the Pope brought up the issues of peace in the Middle East, refugees and the status of the holy places, but no agreement was reached.[58] According to Meir's own account of the meeting, the Pope criticized the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians, and she said in reply: Your Holiness, do you know what my earliest memory is? A pogrom in Kiev. When we were merciful and when we had no homeland and when we were weak, we were led to the gas chambers.[59]

Relations since 1993[edit]

The opening towards the State of Israel by the Vatican was partially a result of Israel's effective control over the entire Holy City since 1967. This forced the Vatican to introduce a pragmatic dimension to its well-known declaratory policy of political denial. Hence, since 1967, Vatican diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel began to waver between two parameters:

• A policy of strict and consequent non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, far beyond the usual interpretation of international law, as the Holy See still embraces its own ideas regarding the special status of Jerusalem.

• A pragmatic policy, through which Catholic interests can best be served by having a working relationship with the party who exercises effective authority and control in Jerusalem.

The establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993–94, on the other hand, was a belated political consequence of the theological change towards Judaism as reflected in Nostra Aetate. It was also a result of the new political reality, which began with the Madrid COnference and later continued with the Oslo peace process, after which the Vatican could not continue to ignore a State that even the Palestinians had initiated formal relations with.

Pope Benedict XVI has declared that he wishes to maintain a positive Christian-Jewish and Vatican-Israel relationship. Indeed, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Benedict stated: "The Holy See joins you in giving thanks to the Lord that the aspirations of the Jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled,"[72] which may be seen as a theological justification of the return of the Jewish People to Israel – indeed, an acceptance that has placed all previous Catholic denials of Zionism in the shade. On the other hand, he has also stressed the political neutrality of the Holy See in internal Mideast conflicts. Like John Paul II, he was disappointed by the non-resolution of the 1993 Fundamental Accord; and like his predecessor, he also expressed support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Israel_relations

[daniel1212]

A canon lawyer thinks this is very hard to say:

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/09/28/can-a-pope-commit-heresy-heresy-defined/

[daniel1212]

I don't see how this isn't a direct repudiation of the 1st Commandment. (and pretty much the entire Torah, NT and the entire rest of the bible. How in the world could you justify the entire book of Joshua using this assumption? This is real "whore of Babylon" stuff.

It depends upon how Catholics interpret the chief interpreter. After all, when the Catholic plainly states that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God, the (unofficial) Catholic Internet Magisterium goes to work trying to spin it as if it were referring to some unknown, undefined god (cf. Acts 17:23) or something other than what it plainly states.

Or else you have a class of TradCaths citing it as one of the modernist errors of V2. Related to this are the variant interpretations on V2's interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/eens.html).

Which makes their interpretive source of Catholic teaching subject to interpretation by the laity.

More by God's grace.

[kanawa]

Whose bright idea was it putting a humanist in charge of a religious organization?

[ebb tide]

In the 14th century, Clement V bemoaned that in Christian lands one hears “the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet”; in the 15th century, Callixtus III denounced Islam as a “diabolical sect.” Pius II warned against Muhammad as a “false prophet,” and Pope Eugene condemned “the abominable sect of Mahomet”; in the 16th century Pope Leo X portrayed the Muslims as replacing the light of salvation with “totally unyielding blindness”; and in the 18th century, Pope Benedict XIV castigated Christians who indirectly promote “the errors of Mohammed” when they take Muslim names in order to avoid taxation and other penalties by Muslim authorities.

[Gamecock]

Scouring the here and now. Is there a new catechism?

[ebb tide]

Try scouring the pre-conciliar catechisms, if you're looking for a Catholic catechism.

[HarleyD]

This is where all this “passive will” and “active will” nonsense ends up. I can just imagine Aaron telling Moses that the golden calf he created was according to God’s passive will. But I suppose since this comes directly from the Pope, it must be “divine” teaching according to Catholic belief. All good Catholics should rally around the Pope’s statement of belief.