Is the Pope Catholic? - The Greatest Schism in Catholic Church History!

Spiritual Food Blogspot ^ | May 10, 2016 | Rev. Joseph Dwight

[Elsie]

Could you please explain?

Yes.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"'I give my opinion and my reasoning--- why not you?'
---Because mine is of no value."

But why do you say stuff like that? Of course your opinions and your reasoning are of value... Have you been knocked around recently by some insolent twit who said your thoughts don't matter?

A great deal of what I post is not the in the official catechism of "my religion." It's thoughts and evidence and reasonable inferences from evidence, buttressed by the learned and insightful contributions of saints and scholars past and contemporary. For instance, the Catholic Church has dogmatically interpreted only very few sections of Sacred Scripture. The rest is open to a great deal of flexibility.

To refer only to recent posts, as far as I know, very few of the philosophical speculations about the natures of angels and the properties of glorified spiritual bodies, are doctrine.

They're speculation --- high-level speculation to be sure--- but they're open to any reasonable critique any Catholic or non-Catholic wants to launch

In the essentials--- unity.

In uncertain things, liberty.

And in all things, charity.

What do you think?

[Elsie]

A great deal of what I post is not the in the official catechism of "my religion."

Sounds like you are channeling ol' Martin!!

[Elsie]

What do I think?

HMMMmmm...

For instance, the Catholic Church has dogmatically interpreted only very few sections of Sacred Scripture. The rest is open to a great deal of flexibility.

I think that your definition of flexibility is surely NOT what your chosen religion thinks it should be.

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."

--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)

[Elsie]

Lateran IV stands as the high-water mark of the medieval papacy. Its political and ecclesiastical decisions endured down to the Council of Trent while modern historiography has deemed it the most significant papal assembly of the Later Middle Ages.^[2] The Fourth Lateran Council was thus the largest and most representative of the medieval councils to that date.^[3]

In summoning the bishops to a general council, Innocent III emphasized that reforms must be made in the Church and that a new crusade to the Holy Land must be launched. He also reminded them that it was not appropriate that their retinue include birds and hunting dogs.^[4]

 ^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran}

^{http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LATERAN4.HTM}

 

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please allow me to give you some quick and necessary perspective on a topic you may have neglected: namely, post-13th-century Catholicism.

God requires of us not only faith in Jesus Christ our Savior, but also adherence to His law, so far as the person knows it. This includes being a member of His Church. Why? Because one is saved precisely by being incorporated into the Body of Christ. We are saved if we are in Christ.

We find in the Popes and the Fathers of the Church two kinds of assertions, very often by the same writers. One kind speaks strongly about the need of Church membership; the other expresses a remarkably broad view of what membership consists in.

How to reconcile the two kinds of assertions? Pope Boniface VIII in his famous "Unam sanctam" (1302) spoke strongly: "Outside of which (the Church) there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. . . . But we declare, state and define that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is altogether necessary for salvation."

But other Magisterium texts repeatedly assert that being "in Christ" is a broader thing than formal Church membership: they speak of even Moses and the Prophets being "in Christ" because they loved Him inasmuch as they had seen Him "from afar" and, in a real though fragmentary way, served Him under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

Authoritative Magisterial texts also say that no one will be blamed for not being visibly in the Catholic Church if they lacked the needed knowledge, or even the possibility, to enter the Church and to remain in her..

Thus Pius IX, in "Quanto conficiamur moerore" (1863) taught:

"God, in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault."

Pius IX does not deny the obligation to formally enter the Church if one knows the truth --- but he still says that if one keeps the moral law as he knows it, somehow the other requirements will be met --- though the Pope does not explain how. In the same document, he uses the words “contumacious” and “obstinate" to clarify that only those who intentionally, knowingly and culpably reject the Church are condemned. That is, they have to do so with the knowledge that they are rejecting something founded by Christ for their salvation.

On August 9, 1949, the Holy Office, citing the teaching of Pius XII in his Mystical Body Encyclical condemned the error of an American priest, Leonard Feeney, who held that those who failed to enter the Church formally, even with no fault of their own, could not reach salvation. The decree says:

"It is not always required that one be actually ncorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit. But when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God."

Pius XII had said that a man can be "ordered to” (meaning, pointed towards and even conformed to) the Church by a certain desire and wish of which he is not aware (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto), that is, the one contained in the good dispositions mentioned by the Holy Office.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don’t think so.

[Elsie]

God requires of us not only faith in Jesus Christ our Savior, but also adherence to His law, so far as the person knows it.

Oh?

This is taught to Catholics?

HMMMmmm...

---

I'v e always wondered why Jesus FAILED to mention it when He was asked a DIRECT question by some fellas...

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

 

 

OF course; there'll be some who will cry: "Out of context!!!"

 

I Am the Bread of Life

²² On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. ²³ Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. ²⁴ So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.

²⁵ When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” ²⁶ Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. ²⁷ Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” ²⁸ Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” ²⁹ Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” ³⁰ So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? ³¹ Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” ³² Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. ³³ For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” ³⁴ They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

³⁵ Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. ³⁶ But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. ³⁷ All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

⁴¹ So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” ⁴² They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” ⁴³ Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. ⁴⁴ No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— ⁴⁶ not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. ⁴⁷ Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. ⁵⁰ This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

⁵² The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” ⁵³ So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴ Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. ⁵⁶ Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. ⁵⁷ As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread^[c] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” ⁵⁹ Jesus^[d] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

[Elsie]

God requires of us not only faith in Jesus Christ our Savior, but also adherence to His law, so far as the person knows it.

Since you seem to understand that GOD requires certain things; let's see what the book that Rome assembled has to say about requirements...

---

 

James 1:27

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

 

---

 

1 John 3:21-23
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.
And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

 

---

 

Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

---

 

John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?

 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

 

---

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Oh; you don't THINK so?

Well; ol' Luther nailed 91 complaints to a church door once that didn't go along with what his church was doing; so how is your response any different?

A great deal of what I post is not the in the official catechism of "my religion."

[Elsie]

Pope Boniface VIII in his famous "Unam sanctam" (1302) spoke strongly: "Outside of which (the Church) there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. . . . But we declare, state and define that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is altogether necessary for salvation."

So THIS is where Mormons got it from!!!

---

 

---

---

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

Ezra Taft Benson

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)     http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Catholic Church is also where the Mormons got the OT and the NT. But it was from the Protestants that they got the idea that they could subtract several books. Ver-r-r-r-r-y inter-r-r-r-resting.

`

The idea that if Christ has founded a church, you'd better be in it, makes logical sense on the face of it. The question would be: which church? And how can you tell?

From the Catholic point of view, the idea that God will not hold you morally culpable for non-church-membership if you were "invincibly ignorant" (you lacked sufficient knowledge) also makes logical sense on the face of it. Do you know if the Mormons teach that?

`

[Elsie]

But it was from the Protestants that they got the idea that they could subtract several books.

Mormonism claims itself to uniquely be "the Church" claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers adds to the Holy Bible (with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) accepts multiple satanic visions as being from God undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins sings praise songs about Joseph Smith, Jr. has strange doctrines regarding marriage (polygamy accepted in early days) believes in God the mother (who has conceived multitudes of spirit children) claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times redefines "saint" to mean a living, breathing Mormon, instead of a bible-defined child of God accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9)- good works, water baptism and church membership professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection doctrines are sending millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture

Catholicism claims itself to uniquely be "the Church" claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers adds to the Holy Bible (with sacred tradition) accepts multiple satanic visions as being from God undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins sings praise songs about Mary has strange doctrines regarding marriage (celibacy still practiced among its clergy) believes in the mother of God (who is the sinless Queen of Heaven) claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times redefines "saint" to mean a physically dead Catholic who was afterwards "canonized," instead of a bible-defined child of God accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9) - good works, the sacraments, Mary and church membership professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection doctrines are sending hundreds of millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture teaches and practices bowing before and kissing statues WORSHIPS the consecrated communion wafer as God claims Mary is their life, sweetness, hope and most gracious advocate (as revealed in the Rosary) claims Mary was raised bodily into Heaven claims they get to Jesus by first going to Mary

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/catholicmormon.htm

[Elsie]

Do you know if the Mormons teach that?

Something quite similar.

---

 

 

"You call us fools; but the day will be, gentlemen and ladies, whether you belong to this Church or not, when you will prize brother Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Living God, and look upon him as a god..."

- Herber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:88

 

 

 

 

"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith]"

- (as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142)

There is "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"

- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190

 

 

 

 

"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God; and there are many of them beside him. I tell you, if we get past those who have mingled with us, and know us best, and have a right to know us best, probably we can pass all other sentinels as far as it is necessary, or as far as we may desire. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again."

- Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154-155

 

 

 

 

"It is because the Lord called Joseph Smith that salvation is again available to mortal men.... If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation,"

- Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 396, 670

---

---

They succeeded in killing Joseph, but he had finished his work.

He was a servant of God, and gave us the Book of Mormon.

He said the Bible was right in the main, but, through the translators and others, many precious portions were suppressed, and several other portions were wrongly translated; and now his testimony is in force, for he has sealed it with his blood.

As I have frequently told them, no man in this dispensation will enter the courts of heaven, without the approbation of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun.

Who has made this so?

Have I?

Have this people?

Have the world?

No; but the Lord Jehovah has decreed it.

If I ever pass into the heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of the Prophet Joseph.

If you ever pass through the gates into the Holy City, you will do so upon his certificate that you are worthy to pass.

Can you pass without his inspection?

No; neither can any person in this dispensation, which is the dispensation of the fulness of times.

In this generation, and in all the generations that are to come, everyone will have to undergo the scrutiny of this Prophet.

They say that they killed Joseph, and they will yet come with their hats under their arms and bend to him; but what good will it do them, unless they repent?

They can come in a certain way and find favor, but will they?

Brigham Young,

--JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, vol. 8, p. 224

[Elsie]

The idea that if Christ has founded a church, you'd better be in it, makes logical sense on the face of it.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Bookmark

[Mrs. Don-o]

You just answered your own question:

"A great deal of what I post is not the in the official catechism of "my religion."

There is nothing wrong with voicing theological opinions which are not "part of" the catechism, if they do not "contradict" the catechism.

It will help if you keep in mind the difference between doctrine and opinion. Treating doctrines as opinions, or opinions as doctrines, is where you get into trouble

Re-reading Luther's 95 theses (LINK) would be a VERY good idea at this point!

When Luther upheld true doctrines against errors and distortions, he was most admirable. (And he does this many times in his 95 theses.) And when he voiced his own opinions on things that were not authoritative doctrines, he was likewise on solid ground (For instance, he said the sale of indulgences was a corrupt practice. He was right about that.)

But when he sets aside doctrine, and substitutes his own opinion as if it were doctrine, as in his thesis #13 ("The dying are freed by death from all penalties") --- that's where he fell into error.

And when he finally broke with the Church and departed from Her midst, he was in very great error. In the Church, he could have been a great reformer. Outside of the Church --- well, "The severed Hand cannot heal the Body."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good illustration!!

[Elsie]

But when he sets aside doctrine, and substitutes his own opinion as if it were doctrine, as in his thesis #13 ("The dying are freed by death from all penalties") --- that's where he fell into error.

#11

You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.

[metmom]

I believe it to be self-evident that nobody should suffer needlessly and that if somebody is terminal and wants to spare themselves and their family and their friends the painful throes of death, that is absolutely their prerogative.

A sinless person does not need a savior, either.