Posted on 11/30/2015 3:52:51 PM PST by ebb tide
Pope Benedict? I think he tried and that’s one of the many reasons he was forced out.
They (the very liberal Catholics) wanted an interim Pope after the 27 years of Pope JPII. Pope Benedict was only Pope for 8 years. He brought the Church back to its roots. The Media, many Clergy, most politicians, and many American Catholics hated it. He was attacking the liberal infestation of the Church.
He said in his statement that he wasn’t physically or mentally able to deal with the demands of the changes within the Church. He wanted the parishes in American and elsewhere to promote pro life and was fought all the way. He wanted the Church to recognize the evil that is Islam and liberalism and was fought all the way especially by those who should be supporting him. He was not what the liberal faction of the Church wanted and he was forced to retire.He was backtracking all the ills and misconceptions from Vatican II and it wasn’t well received at all.
I’ve seen it in my own Parish, in the school and church. They fought him and embrace Pope Francis.
I’ve seen it in my own Parish, in the school and church. They fought him and embrace Pope Francis.
Yep...in my Novus Ordo parish the romance is gag worthy...
Most of the social dynamism in this, and I suppose most, parishes is driven by females, thus the default impulse toward leftist thought (and the infatuation with leftist Begoglio) is unavoidable...and one cannot count on the men to do much about it, as it appears that the less they have to think about theology, the better...
I agree. Matthew 18:15-17 shows that the Lord taught to expel unrepentant sinners from a congregation.
I used to be a Catholic. Glad I left.
The fact that a pro-Catholic site is publishing this denunciation is amazing.
“I agree. Matthew 18:15-17 shows that the Lord taught to expel unrepentant sinners from a congregation.”
Good one.
Well, Francis is sure going to take care of what’s left...
One of the problems is simply that he’s not very intelligent and is poorly educated. That’s why he can just shrug off 2000 years of Christian theology and civilization with an “eh?”
He is the face of Catholicism.
Bear in mind that "the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church" and "and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation."-- November 18, 1302, Pope Boniface VIII Papal bull Unam sanctam
The disdain expressed lately by Catholics for this pope is at a very high level these days.
There was a time that OTC Christians were accused of bashing Catholics by exposing this pope as a heretic.
So no longer does anyone have to be in submission to the pope and belong to the Catholic Church to attain salvation.
Of course mainstream Christianity (sans Catholicism) has never believed that as it is not scriptural.
Belonging to the actual body of Christ (membership attained by believing in Jesus and being born again) is a necessity for salvation and makes the new believer a member of Christ's body.
No Paul VI’s major accomplishment was promulgating Vatican II...which are the wheels that set all of this in motion.
Here’s the thing. Catholic teaching teaches that manifest heretics lose their office ipso facto. In other words, a manifest heretic pope is no pope at all. As a result, no submission is necessary nor required.
John XXIII called Vatican II. He is reputed to have said, repeatedly, on his deathbed, “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!”
Actually, the Council itself didn’t start the rot. It was already there.
What Paul VI did, which the Council did NOT call for, was destroy the Roman Rite.
And in the first post-conciliar Synod, the bishops were shown the Novus Ordo, and they voted against it overwhelmingly. Paul’s response was to cut them out of the loop.
So the FIRST Synod was “rigged,” just like the last two.
John XXIII may have called it, but Paul VI promulgated it.
And the rest is history.
OK, Vii didn’t start the rot. It just codified it and made it official.
My point is that had there not already been Modernists and Communists distributed throughout the Church, the documents of the Council would not have created chaos. And without the destruction of the Roman Rite, the liturgical atrocities of the last 45 years would not have occurred.
It was the ugliness of the Novus Ordo, more than anything else, that drove Catholics out of the Church.
Calling the Council was a mistake. No Council was needed. The documents of the Council are gaseous and unreadable, but there is almost nothing in them that’s really objectionable.
Really, of all the destructive things that Paul VI did, the Council doesn’t rank up with the very worst of them.
Far worse was his Ostpolitik—refusing to fight Communism.
His episcopal appointments. In the U.S., they are called “Jadot bishops,” (Bernardin, Weakland, Hubbard, Clark, etc., etc.) but Paul filled the episcopacy around the world with homosexuals and Commies.
The Novus Ordo, which not only made the Mass ugly, verbose, and repellent, but resulted in the loss of Chant, Polyphony, and virtually the entire canon of liturgical music.
Because in 1302, Pope Boniface VIII said one must be in "submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation."--
Fortunately for OTC Christians the only submission needed is submission to Jesus.
If all Catholics that are not Catholics anymore ('cause there is no pope) wish to become Christians it's very simple.
Come to Jesus and become a part of the body of Christ.
Flippity Floppity. No wonder nobody can get a lock on what key he’s playing in.
Quite the master of Jesuit cognitive dissonance he is.
Your logic is faulty. After a pope dies and before another one is elected (during the interregnum), do Catholics stop being Catholic?
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.