"Francis and the Joint Declaration on Human Fraternity: A Public Repudiation of the Catholic Faith".
Is repudiation of the Catholic Faith not what you all do? Why are y'all complainig about about your friend, Humble Jorge?
/627_Prot-03.jpg)
_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
Posted on 02/10/2019 9:45:16 AM PST by ebb tide
Are you serious or are just being sarcastic?
Hey there, nice to have you in the discussion, Brother HarleyD: but, brother, you suppose wrong.
Why do you write dubious things about other people's religious faith without checking it out first? One single question to one single FReeper Catholic would have dismissed this supposition of yours.
It is not, and has never been, a teaching of the Catholic Church that the pope is some kind of all-purpose oracle, or that he he is, even in his religious opinions, infallible.
This is short and exactly relevant (LINK) -- and should prevent you from making this false supposition in the future.
Thank you for affording me this opportunity to make--- gently, I hope -- a necessary correction.
Perhaps I’m wrong but what precisely is the purpose of the Pope signing the document if not to put the full weigh of the Catholic Church behind it? Isn’t he signing the document for the Church? It’s no more different than a CEO signing a document for a company.
If the Pope is allowed to sign any document that comes down the pike, then it means nothing for Catholics to get upset. It makes no different for Catholics and the signature is meaningless. It’s almost a slight-in-hand saying, “Sure we’ll sign the document.” all the while knowing that it means nothing. Not exactly a Christian value in my opinion.
If on the other hand the Pope’s signature has some level of meaning and binds the Church, then it must mean SOMETHING more than a signature. Catholics would have the right to protest and it should say SOMETHING about the direction of the Church.
"No" and "No".
We were actually told by several here that it was a Coptic Bible that he was kissing and it wasn't a muslim after all.
It had been mislabeled.
Or misinterpreted.
Or mistranslated.
Or mis-something else or other.
We warned them about Francis and were soundly condemned as *anti-Catholics* and *haters*.
We have now been vindicated, and the silence is deafening.
Nary a *You were right* coming our way.
Not that I expect it. Just an observation.
Kinda but not quite.
In this way, it's similar. I don't claim to know corporate law, but I'm thinking a CEO might sign a document which becomes legally binding on the whole corporation. But that would be only under certain circumstances, on certain subjects. Memos, no. Magazine articles, no. Inherently illegal documents, no. Legal contracts, yes.
With the Pope, the charism of infallibility is inherently negative. There is nothing there that guarantees that a pope will speak out in a timely manner, in a comprehensively complete manner, or even in an unambiguous and cogent manner.
The doctrine of infallibility only tells us what he can NOT do: he cannot make a pronouncement on the doctrine of the faith, or on moral law, which directly contradicts the deposit of faith, but is at the same time formally binding (de fide) on the whole Church.
If you know a bit of history, you know the pope has made only (approx) two ex cathedra statements in a couple of hundred years.
(I said "approx" two because the thinkier theologians will argue about whether, for instance, canonizations are infallible, or whether the declaration of infallibility itself was itself in infallible form(!!)
This is not to say that the only way to be true and correct is to be infallible. Far from it. The whole "Ordinary Magisterium" is authoritative, not because it was put forth under the incredibly precise prescriptions of an "ex cathedra" pronouncement, but simply because it is based on indisputable sources, e.g. the words of Our Lord Himself.
As an example: Our Lord says "Thou shalt not commit murder."
In view of this, the Pope signs off of the following statements of the Second Vatican Council:
“Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.” (Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 51)
.... “With these truths in mind, this most Holy Synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced, by recent popes, and issues the following declaration:
Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It is firmly and unequivocally condemned.” (Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 80)
Here the Lord has set out the exceptionless norm, "No murder, no way," but the Council and the Pope, in solemn terms, are specifying what is logically, necessarily included in (the Lord's) exceptionless norm.
...is because he keeps blabbering dubious stuff in a "quasi-authoritative" rhetorical style style, with a lot of God-talk and huff-puffery, and then acting as if, yup, that's papal magisterium.
He threw some of us for a loop when he insinuated some ringers into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (A.A.S., the official gazette of official acts of the Holy See) and even into the Catechism. But just because it's published doesn't mean it's papal magisterium. By its very nature, authentic papal magisterial statements cannot flatly contradict what previous popes taught as part of the Ordinary Magisterium. That's just a law of logic. A does not equal non-A Not at the same time and in the same manner. A proposition cannot be true and false at the same time. Lose that principle, and you don't only lose your Faith, you lose your mind.
So, for instance, Pope Francis can't outright contradict what was taught authoritatively by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Because their statements of authentic doctrine are binding on him.
That's one good thing about this (otherwise maddening) age of instant global communication: we can see outright contradictions very quickly. And enough of us know enough, that we just ain't buying it.
Ah, FRomans and their superiority-inferiority complexes.
None of the usual suspects ever actually answered the question I put to them about what the difference between them and the historical Martin Luther actually is. Best I ever got was a copy-paste from a religion-porn site that claimed to be able to read Luther’s mind from years ago.
It reminds me of the ORANGE MAN BAD meme that sprang up recently.
Don't pat yourselves on the back. Us Catholics were way ahead of you.
The Horror! A Buenos Aires journalist describes Bergoglio
It were non-Catholics, including protestants, who celebrated the election of Humble Jorge.
The most amusing part is when the FRoman brigade declared that they didn’t have to submit to Francis because he was actually a Protestant.
And then, having taken it upon themselves to judge their own Pope, condemn us for daring to do the same thing.
Of course, trying to point this out results in more or less a screamed refrain of “GERMAN MAN BAD! REEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
"Francis and the Joint Declaration on Human Fraternity: A Public Repudiation of the Catholic Faith".
Is repudiation of the Catholic Faith not what you all do? Why are y'all complainig about about your friend, Humble Jorge?
And just where did I complain about about Pope Francis? Its not our problem that he is pope, or that you are a schismatic according to institutional Catholicism. Can you even post articles under the Catholic Caucus label?
Exactly! Nowhere have you complained.
Thanks for proving my point that non-Catholics have no problem with this renegade pope.
No; I can't when the articles mention muslims.
But what precisely is the meaning of the Pope signing such a document? What does it mean for the Church and, most importantly, for the corporate body of believers in the Catholic Church?
No; I can't when the articles mention muslims.
Being as you and many other Catholic posters have proclaimed that the Pope is not Catholic, then it seems that threads about Pope Francis (Bergoglio to you) can no longer have the the Catholic Caucus label.
BTW, I do not know who occupies the Religion Moderator office, but in my opinion it is the most mature, fair, judicious I have ever encountered in that position on forums, and rules are overall the same. Thank God for these mods even if they have sometimes cited me, and are not perfect (not that the former means the latter!). Without which you have anarchy while on the other extreme you have liberal university-type snowflake censoriousness.
See, the funny thing is if Pope Francis had signed a Joint Declaration on Human Fraternity with Protestants (which WOULD actually be accurate about the worshipping of the same God), the anti-Francis cabal would STILL pitch a fit!
If a non-Catholic Freeper posted the numerous daily hit pieces on the Pope and the current Catholic church like a few Catholics do, no doubt he/she would be complained about to the Mods as a bigoted anti-Catholic and drummed out of Free Republic. Do you deny that?
I have never claimed Bergoglio is not a Catholic. I have claimed he's a heretic, just as the Catholic priest, Martin Luther, was one; both heretics.
Old news on joint declarations. It's aready been done:
JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.