Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on October 27, 2015, 01:25:27 PM
-
http://buchanan.org/blog/is-the-pope-toying-with-heresy-124205
Are Catholic truths immutable? Or can they change with the changing times?
This is the deeper question behind the issues that convulsed the three-week synod on the family of the 250 Catholic bishops in Rome that ended Saturday.
A year ago, German Cardinal Walter Kasper called on the church to change — to welcome ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couples, and to permit cohabiting and divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion.
Retorted traditionalists: This is heresy.
Had the pope followed his friend Cardinal Kasper and ordered Catholic teaching and diocesan practice changed, he could have provoked a schism inside the Church.
Such a change in doctrine would have called into question papal infallibility. Defined at the Vatican Council of 1869-70, that doctrine declares that when the pope teaches ex cathedra, on matters of faith and morals, he is protected from error by the Holy Ghost. Doctrinal truths, taught by popes in communion with the bishops, down through the ages, cannot change.
But if Catholic truths about the indissolubility of marriage and intrinsic immorality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions can be changed, then, either the Church has been in grave error in the past, or the Church is toying with heresy today.
Saturday, The Washington Post described the synod as a “brawl over Francis’ vision of inclusion.”
Reporter Anthony Faiola compared the synod deliberations to a Tea Party rebellion in John Boehner’s House caucus, and the pope to a change agent like Barack Obama who finds himself blocked and frustrated by conservatives.
Saturday’s docuмent from the synod ignored the call for a new Church stance toward ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions. And it did not approve of giving Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics, whom the Church considers to be living in adultery.
Yet, in Sunday’s sermon the pope seemed angered by both the defiance of the resisting bishops and the conclusions the synod reached. To Pope Francis, the traditionalists appear to be placing the strictures of moral law above the Gospel command of mercy.
“None of the disciples stopped, as Jesus did” said Francis of the blind man. “If Bartimaeus was blind, they were deaf. His problem was not their problem.
“This can be a danger to us. … A faith that does not know how to grow roots into the lives of people remains arid and, rather than oases, creates other deserts.”
The pope seems to be saying that the dissenting bishops, no matter their command of moral law, are lacking in charity, the greatest of the three theological virtues.
Where does the bishops’ synod on the family leave the Church?
In confusion, and at risk of going the way of the Protestant churches that continue to hemorrhage congregants.
Recall.
With its acceptance of birth control at the Lambeth conference of 1930, the Church of England started down this road, as did its sister, the Episcopal Church. The process led to the decline of both.
From birth control, to divorce and remarriage, women priests, gαy clergy, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ bishops, same-sex marriage, the Episcopal Church first broke apart, and now appears to be going gentle into that good night.
Indeed the Church of England began in schism, when Henry VIII broke with Rome after Pope Clement VII refused to approve his divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his marriage to Anne Boleyn. According to Cardinal Kasper, Clement should have cut Henry some slack.
In this battle between traditionalists in the synod and the bishops who favor acceptance of some or all of Kasper’s recommendations, the pope seems to stand squarely on the side of the reformers.
Yet, it was the Protestant Reformation that destroyed the unity of Catholicism, five centuries ago, as it divided nations and led to conflicts of religion and nationalism, such as the Thirty Years War.
How the Catholic Church can avoid greater confusion among the faithful — after the pope’s virtual blessing of the Kasper recommendations, and the synod’s rejection of them — escapes me.
What does the pope do now?
If he ignores the synod’s dissent and moves the Church toward the Kasper position, he could cause a traditionalist break, a schism. Third World bishops might well refuse to change.
If he does nothing, he will disappoint Western bishops, priests and secularists who have seen in his papacy hope for an historic change in Catholic teaching and practice.
If he permits the bishops to follow their consciences in their dioceses, he will advance the disintegration of the Church.
The inevitable result of any of these courses that the pope chooses will be, it seems, to deepen the confusion of the faithful.
As for Pope Francis himself, he, too, must choose.
He can emulate Cardinal Wolsey — or Thomas More.
-
Good piece. Thanks for posting.
-
Good piece. Thanks for posting.
You are very welcome. I have always admired his writing, not just what he writes but also how he writes it. Very clear and concise.
-
Great post. Thank you. We need to be aware that the word "inclusion" is a psychological trick intended to make sin look good and to make opposition to sin look bad. The issue is God's rights; He has the right to make the rules and He has. The second Person of the Holy Trinity made it very clear when He said
Mark 10:11
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
To tell a public adulterer that he or she can go to the sacrament of confession without true contrition, without promising to sin no more, but to continue in that sin is sinful in itself. To tell those who continue to sin that they have permission to continue to sin and have permission to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord is a sacrilige. They are heaping coals of hellfire on their own heads and on those who have itchy ears and listen to them.
-
In this battle between traditionalists in the synod and the bishops who favor acceptance of some or all of Kasper’s recommendations, the pope seems to stand squarely on the side of the reformers.
Too bad the "traditionalists in the synod" aren't truly traditional.
-
Toying, yes he is toying with it. But the problem with modernism is that a Modernist will not flat out DENY the faith, but he will do everything he can to undermine it.
I think the problem is that some people want these popes to be clear cut heretics so they can make a clear cut for/against decision.
But see, Satan is smarter than that. Isn't this what makes it ten thousand times worse: plausible deniability in every act and every statement? Isn't the darkness deeper in the absolute ambiguity of it all?
Christ himself would indicate so when he says to the Church of Laodicea: "I would that you were hot or cold!" In other words, I would rather you were hateful or loving, a heretic or a saint! But because you are NEITHER...I am going to vomit you out of my mouth!
Let us also consider those seven letters in Apocalypse: Jesus Christ makes very great accusations against those churches, not only for the fault of the majority, but of the minority.
Yet in all this, the Churches remained Churches. Is it impossible that these letters should inform our own perspectives here and now?
-
Toying, yes he is toying with it. But the problem with modernism is that a Modernist will not flat out DENY the faith, but he will do everything he can to undermine it.
I don't think he's toying at all. He has embraced heresy and apostasy 100%.
-
Toying, yes he is toying with it. But the problem with modernism is that a Modernist will not flat out DENY the faith, but he will do everything he can to undermine it.
I don't think he's toying at all. He has embraced heresy and apostasy 100%.
But if someone says "where?" He can point to another statement that seems to mean the opposite.
-
Poor Bergoglio. Isn't collegiality a b----?
-
The major mistakes people make is to presume Francis is a "poor guy who is heretic but he's good in intention"
Have you ever considered that he may know exactly what he's doing? Have you ever considered that he may be a freemanson or someone who thinks that the Church is the most evil thing on this earth?
Is there a coincidence that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are doing exactly the same thing over and over?
Can someone in his right mind say that all these Popes are good men but only "mistaken" ?
Is it possible for 5 Popes make the same exact mistakes over and over and their omissions on the same issues?
-
Saturday’s docuмent ... did not approve of giving Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics, whom the Church considers to be living in adultery.
False. As we have seen, the Relatio completely subjectivizes the decision about whether Catholics living in a bad marriage can approach the Sacraments, allowing them to make their own decision based on subjective criteria regarding "culpability" and/or because they themselves have decided that their previous marriage was invalid.
-
Poor Bergoglio. Isn't collegiality a b----?
:roll-laugh1:
-
The major mistakes people make is to presume Francis is a "poor guy who is heretic but he's good in intention"
Have you ever considered that he may know exactly what he's doing? Have you ever considered that he may be a freemanson or someone who thinks that the Church is the most evil thing on this earth?
Is there a coincidence that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are doing exactly the same thing over and over?
Can someone in his right mind say that all these Popes are good men but only "mistaken" ?
Is it possible for 5 Popes make the same exact mistakes over and over and their omissions on the same issues?
Tell it to Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay.......................
-
they're just drawing on the same source: Vatican II.
-
The major mistakes people make is to presume Francis is a "poor guy who is heretic but he's good in intention"
Have you ever considered that he may know exactly what he's doing? Have you ever considered that he may be a freemanson or someone who thinks that the Church is the most evil thing on this earth?
Is there a coincidence that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are doing exactly the same thing over and over?
Can someone in his right mind say that all these Popes are good men but only "mistaken" ?
Is it possible for 5 Popes make the same exact mistakes over and over and their omissions on the same issues?
Tell it to Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay.......................
I don't think +Williamson would agree that Francis is mistaken. On the other hand +Fellay loves Ratzinger more than he loves Jesus.
I'm sure 99,9% people here never considered that Vatican II has a plan... and their Popes work precisely functions with the precision of a Swiss clock.
Also their public acts are just clockwork. You had a smiling Pope, a Pope that ran from communist and was shot in public so by this fact could not be criticized for drinking pagan's fluids, you had the German Master of Theology who would appeal to the more intelligent Catholic, now you have the "Who am I to judge?" to appeal to the marxists and effeminate ...
I always think about Vatican II in the way +Lefebvre described it: A protestant and freemanson takeover.
I go further: Vatican II is a mix of Masonic Lodge organization (The Rites and structure ) and Aleister Crowley doctrine based on French Revolution "Liberté, égalité, fraternité"
What do you think the following quote is from: A freemason or "Pope" Francis?
"All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all ... public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents."
-
+Lefebvre audio 12 min... in french with portuguese subtitles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YzLqfkWjWA
It seems odd but I can't find this version with english subtitles and I remember watching it
+Lefebre says he really believes that Rome's not Catholic and talks about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
-
+Lefebvre audio 12 min... in french with portuguese subtitles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YzLqfkWjWA
It seems odd but I can't find this version with english subtitles and I remember watching it
+Lefebre says he really believes that Rome's not Catholic and talks about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Very interesting. Thanks!
-
+Lefebvre audio 12 min... in french with portuguese subtitles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YzLqfkWjWA
It seems odd but I can't find this version with english subtitles and I remember watching it
+Lefebre says he really believes that Rome's not Catholic and talks about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Very interesting. Thanks!
@4:34 +Lefebvre "And when things get clearer we realize now that this program, which was elaborated in the Masonic Lodges, all these errors were elaborated in Masonic Lodges. We slowly realize it now and with greater precision that simply there's a Masonic Lodge in the Vatican"
Does someone know the date of this audio? If there's more than 12 minutes?
p.s: The translation are mine and were done in few seconds, please don't hold them as faithful.
-
I always think about Vatican II in the way +Lefebvre described it: A protestant and freemanson takeover.
I would say Jєωιѕн, first and foremost.
-
I always think about Vatican II in the way +Lefebvre described it: A protestant and freemanson takeover.
I would say Jєωιѕн, first and foremost.
Even if I didn't have internet it's easy to see the Jєωs behind communism: look at the Bolshevik party founders last names. It's missing Karl Radek (Jєω) and others Jєωs but that was the "core".
NAME NATIONALITY
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jєω
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jєω
Lourie (Larine) Jєω
Ouritski Jєω
Volodarski Jєω
Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jєω
Smidovitch Jєω
Sverdlof (Yankel) Jєω
Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jєω
Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Krylenko Russian
Lounatcharski Russian
Another issue: Althought Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and "Liberty" were promoted by Jєωs, on the foundation of Protestantism and alchemy there were hundreds of non-Jєωs just like the marxists today are not Jєωιѕн, but it's a Jєωιѕн invetion.
Not all Jєωs are evil, but it's fair to say all evil behind French Revolution and so on were decided in Masonic Lodges where I believe the majority were Jєωιѕн industrialists and bankers.
-
(http://www.angelusonline.org/images/articles/2003_May/Lefebvre-and-Castro-Mayer.jpg)
This picture if shown to Paul VI should have exorcised him.
-
+Lefebvre audio 12 min... in french with portuguese subtitles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YzLqfkWjWA
It seems odd but I can't find this version with english subtitles and I remember watching it
+Lefebre says he really believes that Rome's not Catholic and talks about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Very interesting. Thanks!
Does someone know the date of this audio? If there's more than 12 minutes?
(answering to myself) best source I can find is this http://resistance-catholique.org/articles_html/2012/11/Mgr-Lefebvre-et-la-Contre-eglise-Conciliaire_contrefacon-de-l.Eglise.htm
It says it's from 1978
-
I always think about Vatican II in the way +Lefebvre described it: A protestant and freemanson takeover.
I would say Jєωιѕн, first and foremost.
Even if I didn't have internet it's easy to see the Jєωs behind communism: look at the Bolshevik party founders last names. It's missing Karl Radek (Jєω) and others Jєωs but that was the "core".
NAME NATIONALITY
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jєω
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jєω
Lourie (Larine) Jєω
Ouritski Jєω
Volodarski Jєω
Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jєω
Smidovitch Jєω
Sverdlof (Yankel) Jєω
Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jєω
Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Krylenko Russian
Lounatcharski Russian
Another issue: Althought Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and "Liberty" were promoted by Jєωs, on the foundation of Protestantism and alchemy there were hundreds of non-Jєωs just like the marxists today are not Jєωιѕн, but it's a Jєωιѕн invetion.
Not all Jєωs are evil, but it's fair to say all evil behind French Revolution and so on were decided in Masonic Lodges where I believe the majority were Jєωιѕн industrialists and bankers.
"Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is a Jєωιѕн establishment, whose history, grades, official appointments, passwords, and explanations are Jєωιѕн from beginning to end."----Rabbi Isaac Wise
http://www.whale.to/b/Jєωs_and_Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.html
-
Today there are many non-Jєωs in masonry
That's a real and big issue , if Europe had its right mind in the 1700's they could have killed all or put in prison freemasons (no more than few hundred in the first 10 years), now it's a much bigger issue
There are thousands of protestants in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and in evil Jєωιѕн media companies.