Posted on 05/16/2016 7:25:41 AM PDT by detective
Writing in Forbes last year, Steve Moore, a Catholic, asked: “What is the theological case for telling those in the poorest villages of the planet where people still live at subsistence levels, that they have a moral obligation to save the planet by staying poor and using less fossil fuels, less energy and electricity?”
Three months later, Vatican Radio ran the telltale headline: “Pope: Christians Should Kneel Before the Poor.” The article cited Pope Francis’ assertion that “poverty is the great teaching” Jesus gave us, and that “the poor are not a burden but a resource.” He capped his homily with, “How I wish that Christians could kneel in veneration when a poor person enters the church.”
His comment was a red flag that went largely unnoticed. Only a handful of Catholic bloggers remarked on it. They are sensitive to Francis’ tendency not to genuflect at those sacred moments during Mass that traditional rubrics require it. Yet he kneels to wash—and kiss—the feet of juvenile offenders or women in a Buenos Aires maternity hospital. Why not at Mass? Have the poor become surrogates for the Eucharist? And what are we to make of elevating poverty from a condition to be addressed to a teaching to be cherished?
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Nope; Tevye was the milkman.
The fiddler was; well; the fiddler.
I am not naming them because I do not wish to ping them into the further discussion with me. However, I think it's accurate to say that they are as Catholic as you are: no more, no less.
"The Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem,
no matter how difficult it is, wheter temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families...that cannot be solved by the Rosary.
There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary."
Sister Lucia dos Santos
(Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan de la Roche)
| 1 | Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces. |
| 2. | I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary. |
| 3. | The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies |
| 4. | It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means. |
| 5. | The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish. |
| 6. | Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying Himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise Him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just, he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life. |
| 7. | Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church. |
| 8. | Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise. |
| 9. | I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary. |
| 10. | The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven. |
| 11. | You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary. |
| 12. | All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities. |
| 13. | I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death |
| 14. | All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ. |
| 15. | Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination. |
...and you should build a wall on your southern border to keep the Palestinians OUT!
My goat can’t type.
Oh youre right...
silly me...
it was the father I was thinking of ...
still the fiddler had his talent and his place...
he wasnt slothful...
when the LORD Jesus Christ said “The poor you will always have with you...” I think He meant they had no intention or motivation of trying to improve their lot...
They were poor because they wanted to be and they thought that that was all they could have in life...many were lazy..
But the Kingdom of Heaven is nigh us and we are entitled to everything that Heaven contains...
only unbelievers like the pope would think we are not...
and so he hides behind his “poor” as an excuse to deny that the LORD Jesus Christ is Savior and we are children of God through Him who loves us and died for us...
It was the children that the LORD Jesus Christ said we were to be like...not the poor...
Every man or woman whom the LORD Jesus Christ set as an example were not poor...
yes the woman with the issue of blood had spent all her money on doctors but she had income from somewhere and now she was healed she didn’t have to waste it on medical help anymore..
How does that contradict what I simply said, that RCs debate whether papal elections are infallible (or at least some believe the election of a pope are guided by the Spirit). Even here a poster has said that "the acceptance of a Pope by the universal Church is infallible and therefore demonstrates that the election was valid." And "If one believes the Holy Spirit moves the hearts of the Cardinal Electors in the election of a new Pontiff, then the both the election of Paul VI, and his subsequent actions, were guided by the same Spirit." RC apologist Mark Shea wrote that "The burden of proof is on those who wish to argue that councils or papal elections they don't like are not the work of the Holy Spirit."
Infallibility is a charism of protection for the Church bestowed by the Holy Ghost upon a valid pope to never in issuing a solemn public universally binding teaching on faith or morals, proclaimed as such, to ever be in error.
In addition,
- Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility: In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ's teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church.
Ratzinger: 9. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed … or to be held definitively … with an act which is either defining or nondefining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Roman pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a nondefining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter.
, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,which necessarily includes the pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.
In any case, papal elections require assent;
10. The third proposition of the professio fidei states: “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciates when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act”...
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ...37 (Ratzinger: Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei; https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/doctrinal-commentary-on-ad-tuendam-fidem-joseph-cardinal-ratzinger/
Those of us who see that the wolves are not sheep nor shepherds recognize that this applies to all the heretics 'elected' since 1958 and the start of the non-Catholic Vatican-2 'church'.
Although i believe modern V2 Rome has contradicted past RC official teaching and yet binds RCs to assent to its modern teaching, it was not my intent to engage in the debate over which side it right (and extends to your position) but that this examples divisive nature of Catholicism For despite asserting unifying assent to the pope, and criticizing for divisions due to variant interpretations of Scripture, RC likewise variantly their supreme authority, which itself teaches unScriptural beliefs.
Their feeling is mutual.
I am not naming them because I do not wish to ping them into the further discussion with me. However, I think it's accurate to say that they are as Catholic as you are: no more, no less.
An insult either way, as it is to assert that the NT church was Catholic.
It was not meant to be an insult, but I think it’s true that they’re as Catholic as you are, neither more nor less. It does not imply a put-down in itself. We’re brothers and sisters in Christ, it seems to me, no matter how difficult that relationship might be at any given time.
Yes, the One True Rock of Ages and a false god who has no strength. This false god can mean different things to different people. Some worship money, others power and still others the praises and adoration of others.
Regardless of how you meant it, it is an insult to say that one who rejects the very office of an infallible pope, and ensured magisterial infallibility overall, infant baptism, Purgatory, and eternal life by personal merit, Cath Eucharistic theology, the Cath priesthood and generally mandated celibacy the hyper veneration of Mary (worship), praying to created beings in Heaven, etc, is as Catholic as those who contend for all such but reject certain modern versions of Catholic teachings as being contrary to historical teaching, and thus the modern popes.
While you reject the latter as RCs, they may post in Cath caucus threads, and with the exception of rejecting modern popes (resulting in an absence that is not without precedent), they are joined with many of your brethren here who deplore Francis and certain V2 teaching.
Yes, Christ did not give Peter a 'new' rock... Christ our Rock, was established since the beginning. And Christ made Moses' writings one and the same as His Gospel. Because Jesus existed when Moses lived. It might shock the many, but Moses today is a Christian.
There has been no change.
Despite your not recollecting, your posts were reviewed and either posted or denied for several weeks.
New posters often neglect to study the guidelines for posting on the Religion Forum and just start posting here.
Anyone who wishes to see the guidelines for the first time or to refresh their memories should click on the link in my name below.
It’s very possible I just didn’t remember. I don’t remember a lot of things. Thanks for clarifying!
Why is it that you, a Protestant, can say some pretty anti-Catholic posts on a regular basis and it's still okay for you to ping her? And yet those horrible, evil sedevacantists may not?
In my travels I have observed the anti-sedevacantism in Catholic circles. The hatred by certain Catholics for other Catholics who take the sedevacantist position in this unprecedented crisis is disgusting.
I didn’t say or imply anything at all about “horrible,” “evil,” or “hatred”. I reject this unprovoked insinuation of malice.
You’re getting the idea of the parties behind it.
Well, then Peter who catholics claim as the first pope, must not have been legit.
11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? Galatians 2:11-14
You’ve judged them to be non-Catholics. Why is it that those “non-Catholics” can’t ping you, but most if not all of the Protestants can ping you? Why such a negative response to the sedevacantists?
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.