what used to be a joke, is now an honest question...A better question to ask—is the Pope the False Prophet? I think so.
“Amoris Laetitia” is not binding and is little more than dicta in its formulation and less in authority due to its conflict with basic Church teaching, ecclesiology, metaphysics and teliology. It is the “Star Wars Holiday Special” of papal documents, and best unacknowledged the way Carrie Fisher denies that there was a “Star Wars Holiday Special”.
That’s a very long mashup.
Pray for a new Pope, as soon as possible.
If the Catholic church is the One True Church and the pope is the vicar of Christ, how can that work?
How does a church that’s claimed to be Christ’s church put into position a man who’s supposed to be free from error in faith and morals like Francis?
Did the Holy Spirit lead the college of cardinals in selecting the man or not? If He did, then how could He put into position someone who so clearly does NOT represent Christ, and if He didn’t, where’s the proof for the claim Catholics make about being free from error and Christ’s vicar?
There’s a huge disconnect between what Catholics claim and would like to believe and the reality in which they find themselves.
When I read something like this, I become more convinced that, at least in the area of orthopraxis, and in much of orthodoxy as well, Biblical Lutherans (LCMS etc.) are more Catholic, in both senses of the term, than the Catholics.
The purpose of reformation is to return the church to where it is meant by God to be, not to split the church into pieces—but it always ends in splits, because those who do not walk with God must walk away.
what used to be a joke, is now an honest question...Just a suggestion and a question.
If you are trying to inform, you might possibly try to “feed” us in small bites rather than shoving an elephant in our mouth and washing it down by opening a fire hydrant.
My question is; Did you think or do you think anybody is going to read the entire post you just made? What was the point of that mashup of material?
How do you elect a pope thats not Catholic?
How did the U.S. elect a a President thats not American?
This pointy hatted pontiff is doing the Catholic religion no favors. I am embarrased he calls himself a christian. Just as bad as the Irish Catholic Michael Moore standing in front of Trump #1 with a sign that reads, “We are all muslem”.
These men’s intellectual and faith based opinions need to thrown out with yesterdays cat droppings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stopped reading at that introductory declaration of ignorance.
Saved reading through an exorbitantly long, sophomorically-written, error-riddled, navel-gazing, blather...
Proverbs 10:19-21 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
19 In the multitude of words there shall not want sin: but he that refraineth his lips is most wise.
20 The tongue of the just is as choice silver: but the heart of the wicked is nothing worth.
21 The lips of the just teach many: but they that are ignorant, shall die in the want of understanding.
Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”
Which, in this case, is rather disturbing due to its believability, and jarring change to a bedrock rhetorical question.
But it's almost indigestible in its present form. For the slightest chance of having it read with the care it deserves, it should have been broken up into 4 or 5 chunks posted separately.
I say this from a friendly page-editor point of view.
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]
that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
...................................................
St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, "De Romano Pontifice", ("On the Roman Pontiff"), liber II, caput 30:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction,
Fundamentum hujus sententiae est. quoniam haereticus manifestos nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, idest, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa.
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union.
The whole concept of a pope is a human invention having nothing to do with the Word of God so there are no surprises in what ensues.
Next you’ll be asking if a bear sleeps in the woods. :-)