Is the Pope Catholic? - The Greatest Schism in Catholic Church History!

Spiritual Food Blogspot ^ | May 10, 2016 | Rev. Joseph Dwight

[Elsie]

we have the writings of the men the Apostles taught,

And we have the writings of the Apostles themselves...

What MAGICALLY transpired to make the INCORRECT Asian Churches into transmitters of INFALLIBLE doctrine?

[Elsie]

OUR LADY AT AKITA, JAPAN said...

Dang!

She sure gets around!

The priests who venerate Me...

[Elsie]

It is no longer, "Do what ever he tells you." John 2:5 It is, "Do whatever I'VE told you."

[JosephJames]

JosephJames to Mom MD
“This article was posted in the category of Catholic. Try your best to straighten out all the poor Catholics in the world. Don’t worry about me, I will remain a Catholic all my life! Pray for us Catholics. Like Jesus said, for the hard cases, it takes not only prayer but also fasting. Make a good fast for me! Thanks!”

I would like to admit that the other day I realize now that I was a little facetious. I was in a hurry when I responded to you. Because like they say, one draws more flies with honey than a barrel of vinegar. On the other hand, to be open with you, perhaps what I took from your comments on the article that I posted, was what I encounter more and more today in all the churches, to set out to put someone straight without the willingness to listen or dialogue. This greatly irritates me especially in my Church, the Catholic Church, especially from priests or bishops, who want to impose without an example to follow, and even worse, to do so without making any reference to the beliefs, the doctrines, of the Catholic Church! I think you can understand this. If a Lutheran, imposes on another Lutheran in the same church, according to his “enlightened intelligence”, without making any reference to the set of beliefs or doctrines of the Lutheran church, this is really gross. None of us are God, but how easy it is to decide according to our own heads right and wrong as did our first parents (Gen 3:4-5)! Subjectivism, relativism, hurray for human pride, which drives people away!
As was written in the article posted:
“When I am tempted to criticize a priest who treats me badly because I am concerned about the great danger to souls in this period of time, among other examples, I like to recall the attitude of the Good Thief on the cross who, while recognizing his own sins, said to the other thief: “We indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but his man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingly power” (Lk 23:40-42). When Saint Francis of Assisi saw a public sinner in Assisi, he said: “There goes Francis if it were not for the grace of God”! The Truth does not belong to those on the left of the spectrum nor on the right of the spectrum; the Truth does not belong to any human being; the Truth is Jesus (Jn 14:6). Every good thought or inspiration come from God (2Cor 3:5; Phil 2:13). We should defend the Truth, but with the proper attitude of who we are and Who God is!”
In the United States there are at least 30,000 independent protestant groups with the same Bible, profession in the same Jesus Christ, but with a great number of contradictory interpretations of many passages in the Bible. Jesus, as God, knew this would happen, and thus Jesus offered the solution and the guidance who have the humility to seek it and accept it. Christ did not found His Church with 12 perfect angels from heaven, but 12 sinners, called the apostles.
As is written in the article posted:
“BEFORE 1930 ALL MAINLINE PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS WERE IN ACCORD WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH that the use of artificial birth control was a grave evil and a serious sin. When the Anglican Church changed its stance in 1930 (Lambeth Conference) the other protestants churches quickly followed suit while Pope Pius XI reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching on this grave evil in his encyclical Casti Cannubii (1930). When the Anglican Church first approved the use of contraception in 1930 it was only for serious reasons and only for married people who have been generous for life. However, by providing an opening for contraception, the qualifying phrase “for serious reason” was quickly ignored. Subsequently the use of contraception was viewed as virtuous behavior, and even the silent holocaust of abortion has become a private ethical choice of birth control. The unborn, unwanted babies no longer have any legal protection; they are now ripped to pieces after they are brutally murdered. BABIES DO NOT CHOOSE TO DIE! Is this not a good example of the slippery slope? The former Hippocratic oath for health care workers read: “I will administer no abortafacient to a pregnant woman.” The original Hippocratic oath acknowledged that abortion was a form of doing violence not only to the child but to the woman as well.”
But as I wrote to another blogger on FreeRepublic, 400 years ago those who did not like the Catholic Church protested and left. But now the protesters, who want a Christianity without the cross, have decided to throw out those who believe that the Ten Commandments come from God and therefore no Church, or no person, can change what comes from God. This is like spoiled arrogant children, who rebel against their parents, but do not leave the house that their parents bought, but throw out the parents. But since these children do not want to work, no one pays the bills and in the end we see what is happening to our country with these type of rebellious children now in power in the government – an incredible national debt. When Pope Paul VI issued his prophetic encyclical, “HUMANAE VITAE” (1968), reaffirming what Christians knew for centuries about separating the unitive act of love between a husband and a wife from the responsibility of giving life as God gave to each of us (“Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28)), there was an incredible negative reaction not only on the part of the laity in the Catholic Church who wanted to enjoy the pleasures of sexual relationships without any responsibility or openness to life by using artificial birth control, but even on the part of a great number of priests and bishops, even entire Episcopal conferences (e.g., the ‘Winnipeg Statement’ of the Canadian Bishops)!
When each of us die, it is not God Who sends us to heaven or hell, it is each of us who choose heaven or hell. If a person persevered during this short life to take the risk of seeking the uncomfortable truth outside of his head, which leads to Christ (Jn 14:6) instead of inventing the truth according to his own head, to trust God instead of himself, he will want to continue seeking this truth after death and will want to be with God Who is the Truth (Jn 14:6). But if a person willing deceived himself, taking the easier way, with the help of the beautiful lies and temptations of “the father of lies” (Jn 8:44), when he dies, just as during this short life, he will not want to be with the Truth outside of his own head, and will choose the only other place that exists for eternity where there is not God. Each one of us has received different amounts of grace and truth from God (the parable of the talents – Mt 25:14-30); how we correspond to these gifts from God will determine our eternal destiny.
Heaven and hell are the exact opposites. When a new person arrives to heaven everyone rejoices. When a new person arrives to hell, everyone has more hate and pain.
Let us pray for each other to seek the truth, in a world more filled with confusion and lies than ever before, to seek the hidden pearl (Mt 13:44-46), even if it means to follow Christ all the way to Calvary and loose everything, even our good name before men, as Christ did on the cross, considered a great criminal worthy of crucifixion.

[BipolarBob]

Blessed Mary is described as being the Great Sign, the Queen in the heavens;
I know you Catholics are TAUGHT this; but it sure would be a bit easier to swallow if something; just ANYTHING had been written about Mary after John took her in; other than this stretch of the Word by Rome.

I think what is lost in all of this is that by the time John penned the book of Revelation that Mary had long been expired. The chapter of Rev. 12 was more about the future of the Church as signified by a woman than any person. This is consistent with the symbolism of a pure woman being a church with pure doctrine and a harlot being a church with polluted doctrine.

[BipolarBob]

Why do my eyes glaze over on some of these postings? The art of being succinct is lost I suppose.

[PeterPrinciple]

Below is a good reminder of the dangers of memorials and images. They start out with great intentions but are soon perverted. I would encourage the reading of the total story of Gideon to put it in perspective.

Jdg 8:27 Gideon made a sacred ephod from the gold and put it in Ophrah, his hometown. But soon all the Israelites prostituted themselves by worshiping it, and it became a trap for Gideon and his family.

[arthurus]

...has to proclaim a truth believed from the beginning by all the faithful.

No, actually. He is not so stupid that he does not know that he would be proclaiming himself an impostor if he violated this.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's a principle of Scriptural interpretation-- observed by all exegetes, not just by Catholics, though if this is not the case, please tell me --- that the understanding of an obscure or symbolic passage has to start with the literal meaning. You start with the literal meaning, then work from there to other senses of the text: the allegorical, the moral, the anagogical, etc.

Another important principle, shared by all of us, I think, is that you use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Though presented in the words of many human authors, Scripture is essentially one work with one Divine Author. So you can go from cover to cover, from Genesis 1 to the last words of Revelation, to find the full dimensions, the depths and heights, the ramifications and implications of the particular passage you are studying.

We're agreed on this, I think?

OK, as for Revelation 12: It's not just "the Catholic Church" that says this is a Great Sign: the passage itself says its a Great Sign. The passage itself says this is the Mother of the Messiah (because he Son, the one who "rules the nations with an iron rod" is identified as the Messiah in Psalms 2; the one "snatched up to God and to His throne" is likewise Jesus, and is an image of His ascension.) All his fortifies the identification of the woman of the Great Sign with Mary, since as we know from the Gospels, she is the mother of Jesus.

A third image is that this Woman of the Sign, and the Dragon, are enemies. This sends us back to Genesis 3, where we read that God said to the Serpent, Satan, that the woman's seed would crush his head. It is Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, who ultimately cruses Satan and is the victor over sin and death. Once again we have the woman identified as Mary, since she is the mother of the Incarnate Word: Christ is her offsprng, the seed of the woman.

Interestingly, the passage refers to "the seed of the woman," but not to the "seed of the man." This is the earliest trace of the prophecy of the virgin birth.

This is the symbolic and moral interpretation of the images in Revelation 12. There's yet more levels of meaning: there's the sense in which this Great Sign, this woman, this virgin mother of the Messiah, is also Daughter Zion, which is to say the people of Israel; and Lady Ecclesia, which is to say the Church.

I think you'll agree that Biblical symbolic language is often multivalent: it can have different layers of meaning that become apparent only at different historic epochs. The Bible makes tremendous use of polysemy, the coexistence of many valid meanings --- usually related, overlapping meanings --- for a word or phrase.

[Mrs. Don-o]

????

What "incorrect" Asian church is a transmitter of "infallible" doctrine? Not sure what you'e talking about here.

[BipolarBob]

the understanding of an obscure or symbolic passage has to start with the literal meaning. You start with the literal meaning, then work from there to other senses of the text: the allegorical, the moral, the anagogical, etc.

Not when the prophecy is clearly allegorical. If Mary were clothed with the sun she would burn up. The moon under feet would be problematical from an astronomic standpoint much less the weight of twelve stars on her head. This was a new revelation given to John and any reference to Mary would be a footnote else we lose focus of the real meaning of this prophecy. There are plenty of examples of a church being represented by a woman in the Bible if one chooses to look though.
Peace be to you

[Mrs. Don-o]

You "guess" that Jesus just spent 40 days repeating Himself. A Biblical perspective on these many unrecorded teachings of Jesus --- better than a guess! ---is that there was so much, that great deal of it was to be handed on through the "hearers and doers of the Word" who were preaching, teaching, acting, practicing the Word, "doing" the Word, but not necessarily writing it.

First, St. John tells us "there's more, folks: there's a *whole lot* more" ---

John 2:25 "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

2 John 1:12 "Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete."

3 John 1:13-14 "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face."

So he told people three times, in writing, that all these teachings wouldn't be in writing!

St. Paul evidently spent years learning directly from the Lord; and although he wrote a great deal, you could read out loud everything he wrote in a couple of hours, not in a couple of years. This is why St. Paul, like St. John, says "there's more, folks, there's a whole lot more."

Making a distinction between Sacred Tradition and mere human tradition, St. Paul says this:

1 Corinthians 11:2 "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you." And again...

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." And again...

2 Thessalonians 3:6 "We instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us."

So Paul, like John, tells us three times to pay attention to the precepts, practices, examples which were handed down to us, but not necessarily --- at that time --- in writing.

[metmom]

God didn’t seem that patient in Noah’s time. Has God changed?

Really?

It took Noah 120 years to built the ark from the time God saw that the wickedness on the earth was so great and then when Noah and his family and all the animals were on the ark, it was another 7 days before all hell broke loose.

Just how much more patient with sin do you want Him?

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are quite right when you say that no woman could "literally" be clothed with the sun or stand on the moon. John is describing this phenomenologically: he tells what he saw. What if he said, "I saw the sun come up"? We all know that it's not the sun that literally "comes up," it's that the planet Earth rotates on its axis and the sun appears at the horizon every 24 hours. Nevertheless, if he writing what he saw, he "saw" the sun "come up."

John *saw* a Great Sign: a woman clothed with the sun. It does not mean that this woman was in the middle of a vast thermonuclear reaction surrounded by solar hydrogen fusion energy. It just means this is what he saw: a woman clothed with the sun. It's symbolic, but it's also literally what he saw.

I should have clarified that the "first" meaning of this passage would have to be what was in the plain text itself: that the woman is the mother of the Messiah: therefore Mary. Other meanings are derivative from that.

The passage strongly reflects the maternal nature of the Church, because Mary is, in a sense, the first embodiment of the Church. Mary/Church "hears the Word of God and keeps it." Christ comes and dwells in Mary/Church. Mary/Church carries Him in her wherever she goes. Mary/Church brings Christ into the world. She is with Him from beginning to end: from His conception, through His birth, through His growth in His human nature, faithfully following Him even to the foot of the Cross; present to receive the Holy Spirit again at Pentecost.

And she has this ongoing maternal association with the Body of Christ even in what you could call the ecclesial sense:

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus."

We -- you, me, all the believers --- are the Church, the Body of Christ, and Mary is likewise our mother, because we are "the rest of her offspring."

Revelation 12 is very, very rich with meaning, and repays careful reading.

[metmom]

He’d be agreeing with all the cardinals WHO PUT HIM IN OFFICE.

That’s not going to be an issue.

And as far as finding something believed by the faithful since the beginning, since Catholicism puts so much weight on *sacred tradition*, making it equal with Scripture, then all they have to do is *find* some *ancient* documents that were *lost* in the Vatican archives for all these centuries, and voila`, new doctrine.

That’s not so hard.

[Elsie]

? The art of being succinct is lost I suppose.

In the abundance of words...

[Elsie]

A third image is that this Woman of the Sign, and the Dragon, are enemies. This sends us back to Genesis 3, where we read that God said to the Serpent, Satan, that the woman's seed would crush his head.

Houston; we have a problem.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hm?

I mean, Hm?

[Elsie]

What "incorrect" Asian church is a transmitter of "infallible" doctrine? Not sure what you'e talking about here.

So coy.

Your PERFECT church; with it's PERFECT doctrine; could not even get those seven churches in ASIA right!

If there were an Internet back then, Catholics would be howling for Pete's head; just like they are Francis' head today!!!

[Elsie]

First, St. John tells us "there's more, folks: there's a *whole lot* more" ---

Sorry Mrs. D; that it appears you are saying that the First Pope was WRONG when he wrote:

2 Peter 1:3

His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

---

So; a conundrum presents itself.

Either Peter didn't know what he was talking about; or your interpretation of what John wrote is wrong.