Posted on 02/04/2017 5:55:17 PM PST by marshmallow
Edited on 02/04/2017 6:26:43 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
VATICAN CITY (AP)
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Also Evangelli Gaudium contains heresy:
“Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description. Fr. Paul Kramer.
His Marxist trash talk is all part of his smokescreen.
Which is exactly why Burgie spews the very sort of ideology he helped fight when in his home country. Meanwhile, he actively works to help the same Globalist cabal who hate the Catholic Church every bit as much as any Marxist or Communist ever has.
When he was back home he supported and helped the dictatorship identify and eliminate priests, religious, and lay people who supported the Liberation Theology crowd as well as anyone else who stirred up opposition to the dictator. Search for the arrest warrant that's out on Burgie back home and maybe you can start fitting the pieces together from there.
It's no deep, dark, secret, that two thirds of what the KGB and Communists were ever blamed for were actually CIA/MI6 operations or blowback from such operations. Just consider the fact that the Vatican Bank has been laundering money and passing it around for the CIA since it was still the OSS and maybe you should consider that when thinking through who it is that actually is undermining of the Catholic Church and who stage manages this Pope in particular.
The KGB pumping people into seminaries, the Globalists pumping people into seminaries, WASP anti-Catholics pushing people into seminaries, democrat party operatives paying for people to go to seminaries, JC Murry preaching Americanism, Hesburg leading the charge of stealing Catholic Church colleges, big Foundations waving bundles of cash under the noses of Bishops, . . . it's amazing there are so many faithful Catholics left in the US.
People like their old familiar bone to chew on and growl over so that's what gets tossed out for them.
You can chew on what's tossed out for you or you can start thinking.
have a nice day
I don’t have the time or energy to parse this, esp. as it is a quote from nobody in particular (albeit a priest, which does make him one of the top several million authorities in the area) and not your thoughts. I know where to begin, as with the case of many things. Fortunately the post that you are replying to wasn’t addressed to you, and I am confident that whatever I might give to you isn’t what you need.
My sense is that you are somewhere between SSPX and SSPV, and have ways of coping with these things that aren’t mine, but who am I to argue.
And we were worried about pedophilia.
Your senses are way off. But that’t par for one who thinks on-the-record interviews with the NYT, published homiles, angelus addresses to thousands of people in St Peter’s Square, airplane interviews with a world-wide press corp are all considered to be “private”.
Take care to note when an org is being espoused since the orgs are many, but there is only One Church' collective, the Ekklesia of those in Christ.
Thanks to daniel for all the work he puts into backing up his statements.
Here is a link to a thread where he provides the evidence you are looking for.
YOUR church leadership is not keen on the laity thinking for themselves.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3518253/posts?page=22#22
Suggesting people who divorced & remarried should be allowed to receive Holy Communion sans annulment is in conflict with the Gospel of Christ & the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church. It is in conflict with Catechism as well. That’s my “basis”.
Where did Jesus ever say that if you are divorced and remarried you cannot participate in communion?
Chapter and verse please.
And that it conflicts with church tradition, I don't doubt, but I don't see a single teaching of Jesus on that matter.
Besides, why would any Catholic be stupid enough to get a divorce when they can get a church approved end of the marriage (aka church approved divorce) otherwise known as an annulment instead.?
That's the problem with the legalism that permeates works based religions.
They always manage to create a way out or around the laws they claim to support on supposed technicalities that someone thinks they found.
So you have no authoritative document or writing that establishes absolute church truth on the matter to which the pope can be objectively held to and measured against, eh?
That leaves a LOT of room for personal interpretations.
It doesn't qualify it in any way, like if you agree with him or think that he's holding to church teaching.
It's an absolute statement that leaves you NO wiggle room.
And if ealgeone's isn't enough, here are more.
Pius 9, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..”
-http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church)
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm
Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516,
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals [Greeks] says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” — St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38
ealegone wrote:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Exactly right. Unam Sanctum states One Faith; one, holy, *catholic, apostolic (*catholic means universal), and Roman Pontiff means the head of the church Jesus founded, successor to Peter. Or do you not understand that? Did Jesus found a church to continue His teaching? Yes, He did. Have there been errors in administration? Yes, of course, as the present day demonstrates.
For further guidance, please read the entire document Unam Sanctum. Then that final sentence you quote will bring better understanding.
link: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm
ealegone wrote:
“This is why Christians say roman catholics have to do what the pope says. This statement doesn’t give the catholic any leeway on what they want to believe.”
Right again. Catholics may believe anything they please, like you, but they remove themselves from the Church Jesus founded. If so, do they remain Christian? It depends on what they want to believe.
Just because one is obliged to be subject to someone in some way does not mean they are obliged to be subject to them in every way and believe that everything that the superior does is the best possible thing from all angles.
Unam Sanctam declared there is no wiggle room for the catholic.
The Bull also states, "We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal."[12] The swords being referred to are a customary reference to the swords yielded by the Apostles upon Christ's arrest (Luke 22:38; Matthew 26:52).[2] Early theologians believed that if there are two swords, one must be subordinate to the other. This then became a spiritual hierarchal ladder, the spiritual judges the secular "on account of its greatness and sublimity,[2] while the lower spiritual power is judged by the higher spiritual power, etc.[11] Thus, it was concluded, the temporal authorities must submit to the spiritual authorities, not merely on matters concerning doctrine and morality: "For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgment if it has not been good." The bull ends, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."[12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam
Per this Bull the pope is head over everything...both spiritual and temporal.
The pope is over the individual catholic and the individual catholic has to do and believe what the pope says.
There are no qualifications about being in conflict with prior church teachings or whether the individual catholic agrees or disagrees with what the pope is saying.
Exactly right. Unam Sanctum states One Faith; one, holy, *catholic, apostolic (*catholic means universal), and Roman Pontiff means the head of the church Jesus founded, successor to Peter. Or do you not understand that? Did Jesus found a church to continue His teaching? Yes, He did. Have there been errors in administration? Yes, of course, as the present day demonstrates.
However, there is nothing in the NT that says Christians must be subject to the pope. For that matter, we don't see the papacy in the NT or the catholic leadership structure evidenced in the RCC.
There are however, many places where the NT says we are to believe in Christ. Outside of faith in Christ, which puts you in His ekklesia (church), there is no salvation.
But there is nothing saying outside of the roman catholic church and being subject to the pope you cannot be saved.
We have no example of that in the NT.
The crowd; with a vat of boiling oil; that'll appear at your door later today will NOT be #NeverTrumpers!!
If your home page is any indication, we are likely about 99.9% in agreement.
Whatever interaction I have with you wouldn’t fall under either the headings of instructing the ignorant or offering effective counsel to the doubtful.
Whtever your ultimate positions are, they are sophisticated and fairly well, if not perfectly informed.
Silly Momma!
If you knew your bible you'd KNOW it's in Acts, chapter 15, verse 1.
--Dude_of_the _Catholic_Wannabe_ Persuasion(Hail Mary!!)
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm
Divorce. By itself civil divorce is not an obstacle to Communion. As a civil action all it does is settle the civil legal effects of marriage (distribution of property, custody of children etc.). However, understood as a moral action, the willful breakup of a marriage or abandonment of one’s spouse is indeed seriously wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear, following on Scripture, that God hates such divorce.
2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
Thus, those who are actually responsible for the breakup of the marriage and the failure to be reconciled when possible are indeed guilty of sin and have an obligation to repent and confess their sin before receiving Communion, as would any grave sinner.
On the other hand, of the innocent party in a divorce the Catechism says,
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.
Thus, the innocent spouse in a marital break-up has the same possibility to receive Communion as other Catholics, with the usual conditions (being free from mortal sin in other areas of life, going to Confession if not, Eucharistic fast and so on).
Remarriage. As noted above in the citation from the Catechism 2382, a ratified and consummated Christian marriage is indissoluble. This is a marriage where the vows are exchanged by two baptized persons, with the proper intention, and consummated by sexual intercourse. No power on earth can declare such a marriage null and the parties free to remarry. However, a marriage tribunal of the Catholic Church is empowered to judge whether a marriage actually did occur and to issue a Decree of Nullity (popularly, but wrongly, called an annulment) when it judges it did not. (See: Annulment/Decree of Nullity) A person who receives a Decree of Nullity is free to marry in the Church since the first marriage was defective from its beginning (i.e. no marriage). A person who remarries in the Church after an annulment is free to receive the sacraments under the usual conditions (as noted above).
However, often times individuals or couples who have remarried but without a Decree of Nullity want to come into the Church, or if already Catholic approach the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist. Sometimes they are even told they can judge these matters in their own conscience without going to a Marriage Tribunal (sometimes called “the internal forum solution”).
In “Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful” the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to the world’s bishops on October 14, 1994 said,
7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced-and-remarried person that he may receive holy communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality. [/library/curia/cdfdivor.txt]
By this document the Holy See affirmed the continuous theology and discipline of the Catholic Church that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the first marriage (whether that marriage was made within or outside the Catholic Church) are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion. Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion. As Pope John Paul II pointed out in Reconciliation and Penance, the Church desires such couples to participate in the Church’s life to the extent possible (and this participation in Mass, Eucharistic adoration, devotions and so on is a great spiritual help to them), as they work toward full sacramental participation.
A Unique Case. One final situation is that of those who have repented of their illicit union, but remain together for a serious reason, such as for the sake of their children. Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their pastor judges that scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as “brother and sister” (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments. If scandal can not be avoided, then they must either separate or refrain from the sacraments.
"Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you." Hebrews 13:17
I see you've gone full Luther and threw out Hebrews along with a big portion of the Old Testament. And unlike the pure ignorance of the statement I quote from your comment, there is nothing in the New Testament that says to throw out part of the Old Testament, that's for sure.
At a certain moment in history Israel broke the Covenant with God, http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/broken.htm
Jeremiah 31:31-33
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Although I don’t think any us are perfectly informed, I thank you for your kind reply.
Dominus tecum
You’re preaching to choir, for once.
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.