Posted on 01/24/2014 11:39:48 AM PST by ebb tide
'Culture of Encounter': An Opportunity to Deny Christ?
'Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute.' ~ His Holiness Pope Francis, on the Feast of St Francis de Sales
Herein lies the Francis enigma, that the Successor of St Peter gives the impression that the Catholic Church does not necessarily contain the fullness of truth and inerrancy in Her teaching. Is this not precisely what the Devil, through his agents, and his whisperings, proposes to mankind in this century, as in previous centuries, that there can exist no absolute truths which can be trusted - not even those insisted upon by the Bride of Christ? Why is Pope Francis reticent to proclaim that the Church has the fullness of truth or that such a thing as 'Absolute Truth' exists?
If I, as a Catholic, maintain that my own opinion holds that badgers are the sweetest of all the animals, then my opinion hold no weight. Yet, if I appeal to the Authority of the Catholic Church in recognising that a particular moral action or doctrine is right or wrong, then I am appealing to the Authority of Christ Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. A 'Culture of Encounter' would appear to involve a measure of denial, obfuscation or apostasy in the public proclamation of Catholic doctrine in the public arena or in private discussions.
St Francis de Sales himself wrote, in his Catholic Controversy...
'If we are to run the risk of erring, who would not choose to run it rather by following his own fancy, than by slavishly following that of Calvin or Luther? Everybody shall give liberty to his wits to run promiscuously about amongst opinions the most diverse possible; and, indeed, he will perhaps light on truth as soon as another will. But it is impious to believe that Our Lord has not left us some supreme judge on earth to whom we can address ourselves in our difficulties, and who is so infallible in his judgments that we cannot err. I maintain that this judge is no other than the Church Catholic, which can in no way err in the interpretations and conclusions she makes with regard to the Holy Scripture, nor in the decisions she gives concerning the difficulties which are found therein. For who has ever heard this doubted of?'
In Rerum Omnium Perturbationem, Pope Pius XI maintained that...
'After this brief resume of the work and writings of St. Francis de Sales, Venerable Brothers, it only remains to exhort you to celebrate his Centenary as worthily as possible in your dioceses. We do not wish that this Centenary should become a mere commemoration of certain events of history which would turn out a purely sterile function, neither that it should be restricted to a few selected days. We do desire that, throughout the whole year and up to the twenty-eighth of December, the day when St. Francis passed from earth to heaven, you do everything possible to instruct the faithful in doctrines and virtues which characterized the holy Doctor.
First of all, you should make known and even explain with all diligence this encyclical both to your clergy and to the people committed to your care. Particularly We are most desirous that you do all in your power to call back the faithful to their duty of practicing the obligations and virtues proper to each one's state in life, since even in our own times the number is very large who never think of eternity and who neglect almost totally the salvation of their souls.
Some are so immersed in business that they think of nothing but accumulating riches and, by consequences, the spiritual life ceases to exist for them. Others give themselves up entirely to the satisfaction of their passions and thus fall so low that they, with difficulty if at all, are able to appreciate anything which transcends the life of sense. Finally, there are many who give their every thought to politics, and this to such an extent, that while they are completely devoted to the welfare of the public, they forget altogether one thing, the welfare of their own souls. Because of these facts, Venerable Brothers, do you endeavor, following the example of St. Francis, to instruct thoroughly the faithful in the truth that holiness of life is not the privilege of a select few. All are called by God to a state of sanctity and all are obliged to try to attain it. Teach them, too, that the acquisition of virtue, although it cannot be done without much labor (such labor has its own compensations, the spiritual consolations and joys which always accompany it) it is possible for everyone with the aid of God's grace, which is never denied us.'
'Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute.'
Said no Pope in history...ever! I mean, does this go for the abortion debate as well? Does this go for the nature of marriage? Does this go for the Sacraments of the Church? The mind Bergoggles! A peace and culture that is based upon falsehood, rather than on truth, is a false peace and a culture that denies Truth. Our ideas are flawed, but the Opinion of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals, even if I, as a flawed human being, present them accurately, are True. These are not simply the ideas of a human institution but a Divine One, founded by the Son of God and guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. I will happily renounce 'my own' ideas and traditions and lose any claim that they alone and valid or absolute. I will never, Your Holiness, renounce the belief that the Church teaches the truth on matters of faith and morals and cannot err in Her teaching, whether the Successor of St Peter should respect these truths, or, indeed, deny them completely one day, or agree with them another, depending on what side of bed he has got out of on the day.
Those who took part in the March for Life in Washington, who received a Papal tweet of support, presumably believe that the sanctity of human life is a moral absolute and that the suggestion that abortion is in any situation a good action is simply not a valid position. Have I understood what Pope Francis said today? I do so hope to God that I have failed to do so.
Pure apostasy.
So what is the Authoritative Catholic Position on Badger Flavor?
My experience here is ... There is no room for discussion, especially if the discussion includes a question or position statement that goes against Catholic dogma.
If true, how do Catholics remove the Pope? This is a direct contradiction of Catholic dogma.
The Pope obviously disagrees with you.
I hope this quote of the Holy Father is referring to areas where there can be a legitimate disagreement. We certainly can’t dialogue on things that have been defined. By the first sentence I mean the following: Maybe John Paul thought that the Church needed him to travel and evangelize as first priority. Maybe Benedict thought that the reform of the Mass was more important than traveling. Maybe Francis thinks that getting the Church more in touch with the poor is more important than travel or liturgical reform. We can dialogue on some things like this. But there are certainly things we can’t dialogue on and must declare as absolute. I would say John Paul’s statements in The Gospel Of Life on abortion and euthanasia, and the statement in the document closing the priesthood to women are close to if not infallible. Francis has said that John Paul has closed for discussion the ordination of women. So he can’t mean everything is up for grabs and subject to dialogue and change. A number of Francis’ statements have been translated incorrectly. Keep this in mind. And if he does say something that could use more precision, the Congragation For The Doctrine Of The Faith will step in and issue a statement. Francis could probably use some of Benedict’s exacting precision with words.
curious
MY comment was in regards to FR discussions
But he acknowledged that Francis is shaking things up in much the same "providential" way Pope John XXIII shook up the church in launching the Second Vatican Council.
"We are realizing that there are sensations of, I wouldn't say difficulty, but of discomfort sometimes in certain circles," he said. "I think step by step we must rediscover a sense of the path, of what the pope wants to tell us."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/23/pope-internet-dialogue-god/4792771/
Cue the “not an infallible statement......misinterpreted.....misunderstood......out of context..........”
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same
Or. in a way a schismatic:
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).
since the 'sin' appears to be against a creed promulgated by a previous Pope.
Or, he could have been mis-translated which seems to be the fall back position around here. Just as I mis-interpreted your comment. Maybe it is a mis-interpretation? There seems to be a lack of unity on this around here.
This is why I don’t trust this Pope. He makes vague, open ended statements which appear to tell those outside the Christian church the worldly things they want to hear and when called on it he claims he didn’t mean what the words appear to say. It is very disingenuous.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm
I think there's another option: the dogma of "papal infallibility" itself is being called into question.
If true ... THAT will call out the Crusaders.
AFAIK, he was speaking ‘ex cathedra’, but I could see what you are saying where he obviously goes against what another Pope has said ‘ex cathedra’. Pretty confusing from Unity Central.org, has to be a ‘mis-’: translation or interpretation, your choice.
was speaking= wasN'T speaking
ex-cathedra is, by definition ... infallable.
understood
I'd guess that the FR Crusaders will sit this one out, not much wiggle room.
Inasmuch as this dogmatic intolerance is a prominent characteristic of the Catholic Church, and is stigmatized by the modern spirit as obstinacy and even as intolerable arrogance, its objective justification must now be established
If “Culture of Encounter” means what it did in the 60’s and 70’s, I say FORGET IT!
The various “Encounter” movements led to confusion, apostasy, and despair.
Nearly every couple I know who went to a “Marriage Encounter” is either divorced or has left the Church!
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.