[ebb tide]

This statement by Pope Francis is thus a clear, public repudiation of the Catholic faith. It follows a series of other more or less clear and public repudiations of this kind. Enough has been said about this rejection of the faith; it is time that something was done about it.

[ebb tide]

Ping

[Sirius Lee]

“We acknowledge one catholic and apostolic faith...” he must have been asleep that day at catechism.

[PIF]

Frankie make official his dhimmi status ...

[onedoug]

Religions that do not worship the Holy Trinity are false religions, that in themselves cause harm to their worshipers. As such, they are evils.

Forgotten of The Law - which Jesus endorsed - and from whence this Catholicism arose.

[lastchance]

The diversity of religion is allowed by God. It is not necessarily to the good of man. Nor is the full Truth of salvation found in it. So by its errors man may be lead into damnation.

[antidemoncrat]

Over the river
And across the plain
While the world slept
The one world government came

[Jmouse007]

The guy is not a Christian, he’s not even a Roman Catholic!
He’s a GLOBALIST SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST, ONE-WORLD RELIGION HERETIC! He’s in charge of the so-called “church” and hundreds of millions of spiritually blind people foolishly follow him.

[ebb tide]

Did Pope Francis Say God Willed Islam Into Existence?

[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.

[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 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

[kanawa]

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

[Elsie]

Poor, ol' Francis. Catching hell for what has gone on for a LONG time!