6 Things Jimmy Akin Won’t Tell You about the Pope’s New Encyclical

The Remnant Newspaper ^ | June 22, 2015 | Hillary White

[sitetest]

Dear JPII Be Not Afraid,

“How many times have you gone to the true source of a 'media' headline and found what they have said is twisted to mean something else.”

I went to the source.

I read the encyclical.

Its framework is fundamentally pagan. To say otherwise is to mislead other Catholics.

The question maybe that needs to be answered is: formal or material?

sitetest

[redleghunter]

The poll was taken about a year ago:

U.S. Catholics View Pope Francis as a Change for the Better

Seven-in-ten U.S. Catholics also now say Francis represents a major change in direction for the church, a sentiment shared by 56% of non-Catholics. And nearly everyone who says Francis represents a major change sees this as a change for the better.

I’m guessing there would be a different result if the pool were limited to only Catholics who attend Mass every week.

Why is there a limit to your perceived demographics. We are told here often that being baptized in the Catholic church leaves an 'indelible mark.'

The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups discussed in the report and accompanying detailed tables.

[redleghunter]

It is truly disheartening to see this constant barrage of insults of the Holy Father. We might not understand or agree with everything he says, but if you are truly Catholic, you believe he is Christ’s vicar on earth.

Would you agree with this?:

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.”

St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”)

http://indefenceoftheholyfather.blogspot.com/2013/12/saint-catherine-of-sienna-even-if-pope.html#!/2013/12/saint-catherine-of-sienna-even-if-pope.html

[redleghunter]

The poll was of members of the Catholic denomination.

That's the problem... we don't all speak with the same voice as we should.

That sounds very 'protestant.'

[ansel12]

The survey in post 2 was dated on the image posted.

The dates are on the survey, May 5 to June 7 of this year.

[redleghunter]

I find it odd Roman Catholics are surprised they have their first post-modern Pope. The church has been heading that way for a long time. It was just a matter of time.

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

Believe me, I wish he wouldn’t say some of the things he does. But that is not my point. Pray as you wish for him, but pray none the less. That is what is needed.

[redleghunter]

God did not put Francis there as ‘pope’, men did, men in the Roman Catholic church hierarchy.

Amazing how these popes are 'divinely' selected mostly throughout history from Italy and in the past from prominent families. How 'blessed' must have been the House of Medici:

Pope Leo X (December 11, 1475 – December 1, 1521), born Giovanni de' Medici, was pope from 1513 to his death.[3]

Pope Clement VII (May 26, 1478 – September 25, 1534), born Giulio di Giuliano de' Medici, was a cardinal from 1513 to 1523 and was pope from 1523 to 1534.[4]

Pope Pius IV (31 March 1499 – December 9, 1565), born Giovanni Angelo Medici, was pope from 1559 to 1565. However, he was only distantly related to the other Medici Popes.[5]

Pope Leo XI (June 2, 1535 – April 27, 1605), born Alessandro Ottaviano de' Medici, was pope from April 1, 1605, to April 27 of the same year.[6]

List of popes from the Medici family

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Paul never viewed himself as catholics view the "pope".

Oh, OK. You're talking about the pope specifically?

I found this:

Old English, via ecclesiastical Latin from ecclesiastical Greek papas ‘bishop, patriarch,’ variant of Greek pappas ‘father.’

Interestingly enough, the Vizier of the ancient Davidic Kingdom, which is the Old Testament type for the papacy, is described "as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda." (See Isaiah 22)

[pgyanke]

We are told here often that being baptized in the Catholic church leaves an 'indelible mark.'

Indeed! And woe to him who betrays his rebirth right. See Judas...

[redgolum]

I agree, (for what I have read). But that isn’t what people hear.

They will see and hear the soundbites.

[pgyanke]

That sounds very 'protestant.'

Not in the least. Protestants don't have a common voice in which to speak. We have the Deposit of Faith, the Doctors of the Church, the Magisterium, the Catechism, et al. Those who profess a faith that is not Catholic with its origin in Christ are not professing a Catholic (universal) faith.

On the Protestant side... those who do not profess the same faith as their neighbor in church form their own church.

Very different approach.

Peace.

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

I have read and meditated on that quote through all of this and I think what needs to be focused on is “for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope” I guess that is where my comments to other Catholics on this thread have come from. That thought.

The time in which she was wrting, the pope was listening to bad advisors. Which I believe is part of the problem today. Yes, at some point he alone is responsible for his actions, that is the reason he needs our prayers.

[redleghunter]

The keys serve a similar function as those given to the steward/vice regent in Isaiah 22.

You are attributing the type/shadow of Eliakim to Peter instead of Christ?

Isaiah 22:

20 ‘Then it shall be in that day, That I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah; 21 I will clothe him with your robe And strengthen him with your belt; I will commit your responsibility into his hand. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem And to the house of Judah. 22 The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him as a peg in a secure place, And he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.

The only glorious throne to his father's house is the One Christ sits on. Jesus Christ promised Peter one of the 12 thrones to judge Israel. Not "THE" throne. Plus the throne discussed is specifically in Jerusalem and over the house of Judah. There is only One who can take that throne...Messiah Jesus Son of the Living God born of the House of Judah.

But I understand what you posted is a personal interpretation of an OT text applying an eisegesis Unless you have an infallible interpretation of the RC magesterium you would like to provide?

Catholics use the entire bible as a cross reference to understand the context of a verse; they do not just pick verses out.

If so then you would not object to a bit of exegesis.

Isaiah 22:

22 The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open.

Revelation 3:

7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,

‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”: 8 “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

Is the above from Revelation chapter 3 also Peter and/or successors?

[redleghunter]

Interestingly enough, the Vizier of the ancient Davidic Kingdom, which is the Old Testament type for the papacy, is described "as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda." (See Isaiah 22)

Could you please provide the infallible teaching of the RCC on what is quoted above?

If Isaiah 22 is a type or shadow of the papacy, then please let me know if this passage confirms your theory based on Isaiah 22:

Revelation 3:

7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,

‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”: 8 “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

Should be an 'open and shut' case.

[redleghunter]

Indeed! And woe to him who betrays his rebirth right. See Judas...

Are you calling the people surveyed a Judas or the Pope?

[redleghunter]

Protestants don't have a common voice in which to speak. We have the Deposit of Faith, the Doctors of the Church, the Magisterium, the Catechism, et al. Those who profess a faith that is not Catholic with its origin in Christ are not professing a Catholic (universal) faith.

Loads of deposits up there and no mention of the Word of God, Holy Scriptures.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I find it odd Roman Catholics are surprised they have their first post-modern Pope. The church has been heading that way for a long time. It was just a matter of time.

Ever since the nineteenth century when evolution and liberal Protestant Biblical criticism were adopted as critiques of Protestant biblicism and sola scriptura.

It's really quite pathetic that people who cheer the gutting of Genesis are surprised when their own beliefs are treated the same way.

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

I agree, some of the content is not necessary and is his opinion. But there is some good things in there also. Like, there is not even a conversation to be had with someone if they do not believe that life should be protected. You can’t be pro-environment and not pro-life. The conversation with most liberals will end before it begins. So, until they agree with that, we won’t even have to worry about a conversation. That is how I look at it.

[piusv]

The question maybe that needs to be answered is: formal or material?

I think the bigger issue is that the heresy is public and manifest.