You; my son; can AVOID this ghastly prospect!!!
For a low; LOW! price of ONLY $11.95...
Posted on 03/24/2017 6:51:14 PM PDT by ebb tide
Good luck with THIS!!!
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
That's what he gets from reading FR's Prot spewings!!!
I just HATE it when stuff like this happens!!
Yet according to official (subject to what "official" means) RC teaching, assent to encyclicals is required, and in general to non-infallible papal teaching addressed to the church. Which is both the strength (if unity at any cost is the goal) and the weakness of the RC basis for assurance of Truth and obedience to it.
For rather than the validity of what is taught being subject to by examination in the light of the authoritative basis for it, which Caths criticize evangelicals for doing, while dissident "true RCs do the same (the difference being the supreme deterministic authoritative basis for evangelicals is wholly inspired Scripture), much historical papal teaching is that "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
He wrestled with the devil, and the devil won.
He shouldn’t’a been jist fiddlin’ around!!
https://youtu.be/tnepPZChA5U?t=23
You; my son; can AVOID this ghastly prospect!!!
Mel Gibson SWEARS by his!!
I thought Mary was JEWISH??
Rather, it is the RC distinctives of this so-called One, True, Faith that are unseen in the NT church of Scripture , and contrary to it.
Moreover, your page on Luther is typical of the hit pages on Luther, which either employ bogus or questionable (such as "Table Talk" recollections) quotes or uses them out of context, and have no interest in understanding Luther's polemical style, which is often hyperbolic.
The main first reference in your referenced compilation is the misnamed, "The Facts About Luther," by dubious Roman Catholic author Msgr. Patrick O'Hare. Of which Researcher Jame's Swan, whose site is where you should search for such things, finds , "This old book had sunk into obscurity until it was revived by the Roman Catholic publisher Tan Books in 1987. In their zeal, some of Rome's 1990's early e-pologists put O'Hare's content on the Internet without checking his facts about Luther."
The next reference is Hartmann Grisar, "a Jesuit historian who used Freudian psychology to assess Luther as a pathological manic-depressive personality. Though as Swan goes on to state , "in my own use of Grisar, I have found him to be mostly reliable with his citations."
I have not determined if the hyperbolic quotes here are accurate, but the Mass is much an corruption of what we see in the NT church.
Your source goes on to reference De Wette for “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart.” Swan's in his research finds:
This letter is not available in the English edition of Luther's Works. It has though been cited either in full or partially in a number of books. The letter itself has quite a polemical history, cited by numerous Roman Catholic sources, as well as even being cited by PBS.
And which is from a letter to a person who is afflicted, and from which is the quote taken out of context, which is that of battling with the devil when the accuser of the brethren is doing so. In response Luther even says "In a case like this the devil is overcome by scorning and despising him, not by opposing him and arguing with him." And in his typical hyperbolic language he even says he wishes he could commit "some brave sin" in order to illustrate the redemption one can have in Christ. And it is and in the context of counseling what to say to the devil when he charges you with sin based on the Law, that Luther says in response that we are to not look to the Law which condemns us, but to the Christ which redeems us:
We must put the whole law entirely out of our eyes and hearts,--we, I say, whom the devil thus assails and torments. Whenever the devil charges us with our sins and pronounces us guilty of death and hell, we ought to say to him: I admit that I deserve death and hell; what, then, will happen to me? Why, you will be eternally damned! By no means; for I know One who has suffered and made satisfaction for me. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He abides, there will I also abide." http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/02/luther-when-devil-comes-to-tempt-and.html
I am not defending all that Luther says, and he says many things that make us blush or reprove, including being too Catholic, but the Internet abounds with inaccurate or bogus assertions, and that Luther actually was an antinomianis one.
For as already recently shown you in response to another one of your postings of RC propaganda,
In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]
“We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99]
All believers are like poor Lazarus; and every believer is a true Lazarus, for he is of the same faith, mind and will, as Lazarus. And whoever will not be a Lazarus, will surely have his portion with the rich glutton in the flames of hell. For we all must like Lazarus trust in God, surrender ourselves to him to work in us according to his own good pleasure, and be ready to serve all men.. And although we all do not suffer from such sores and poverty, yet the same mind and will must be in us, that were in Lazarus, cheerfully to bear such things, wherever God wills it.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:25]
“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]
“For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present. Therefore man knows by the fruits what kind of a tree it is, and it is proved by love and deed whether Christ is in him and he believes in Christ...” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]
“For if your heart is in the state of faith that you know your God has revealed himself to you to be so good and merciful, without thy merit, and purely gratuitously, while you were still his enemy and a child of eternal wrath; if you believe this, you cannot refrain from showing yourself so to your neighbor; and do all out of love to God and for the welfare of your neighbor. Therefore, see to it that you make no distinction between friend and foe, the worthy and the unworthy; for you see that all who were here mentioned, have merited from us something different than that we should love and do them good. And the Lord also teaches this, when in Luke 6:35 he says: "But love your enemies, and do good unto them, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil." [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:101]
...if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead......Peter says the grace and gifts of God are not one but manifold, and each is to tend to his own, develop the same and through them be of service to others.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]
In addition, upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament moral law, Luther responded,
And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Martin Luther, ["A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way", http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html]
All encyclicals, before this pope, were written so that he could say "We teach," very much like Peter himself speaking for all the Apostles. Francis did not include the teaching authority in Amoris. He had his people send out questionnaires and he conferred with a few like-minded bishops. That is contrary to how the Magisterium works.
An encyclical is meant to present to the Catholic Church the teaching of all the bishops. In this one he picked a few friends and is trying to pawn it off as "The Official Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."
Many people know better than that and that is why he is getting the blowback and deservedly so.
I was referring to what are formally titled an encyclicals, while Amoris Laetitia is formally titled and usually referred to as a "Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation," such as as by your bishops. Granted, the difference is imprecise, since an encyclical originally referred to a circular letter passed around to all the churches of a certain area, but came to " almost exclusively refer to certain papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either Bulls or Briefs." (Catholic Encyclopedia > Encyclical)
Which differences are technical (http://www.ewtn.com/HolySee/Pontiff/categories.asp#exhortation), and what magisterial level a teaching falls under, and thus which level of assent is required of Catholics, are typically matters of dispute.
All encyclicals, before this pope, were written so that he could say "We teach," very much like Peter himself speaking for all the Apostles. Francis did not include the teaching authority in Amoris. He had his people send out questionnaires and he conferred with a few like-minded bishops. That is contrary to how the Magisterium works.
An encyclical is meant to present to the Catholic Church the teaching of all the bishops. In this one he picked a few friends and is trying to pawn it off as "The Official Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."
Then perhaps the term "Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation," distinguishes it from an encyclical, yet it is obvious that you reject this document as being worthy of the title "Apostolic Exhortation" as well, while your bishops overall applaud it as in affirming,
Pope Francis has given us a tremendous gift in Amoris Laetitia. May our ongoing reception of it continue to be an opportunity for the whole Church and society to renew their dedication to protect, promote, and strengthen marriages and families. - http://www.usccb.org/news/2016/16-127.cfm
Francis does use "we" in this letter, and while may be not be "speaking for all the Apostles" (nor did so many other popes, inclusively) but it seems like he is speaking for a majority, which is what elected him. And papal authority reserves to itself the supreme authority to provide the correct understanding or church teaching, as do the bishops with the pope, as V2 exampled (perhaps you publicly dissent in part from that as well).
And i think that your criteria upon which you justify your public dissent is subject to dispute, with both sides being able to invoke past teaching to support them.
Francis did not write the Amoris with the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, therefore it is his own opinion and not worthy of assent by the people.
While Pope Francis did say "that everything in his post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia was agreed by a majority of the Synod fathers," (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/pope-francis-everything-in-amoris-laetitia-was-supported-by-the-synod), yet rather than the pope being unable to exercise the magisterial teaching authority of the Church apart from the bishops, it is the bishops, singly or collectively, who have no authority apart from papal sanction, and who "can himself, independent of the bishops, exercise the supreme Magisterium." - Ralph M. McInerny. What went wrong with VATICAN II. (Sophia Institute Press, 1998; https://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/sipvat2.htm).
I know the SSPV and SSPX type have their side to justify them essentially acting like us in dissenting from what is taught by Rome based upon our understanding of our respective supreme authorative sources (and i even think they are correct that modern RC teaching contradicts some of her past, though both stand in contrast with the NT church ) but i do not see room for their dissent in the light of much past teaching.
Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.
Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals. " But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Quanta Cura. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm)
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm
In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:
80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
And it is quite well evidenced that the popes last (titled) encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).
Thus we either have Trad. RCs contradicting past papal teaching in asserting the modern papal and magisterial teaching contradicts the past, or Rome's interpretation of herself is to be trusted.
Thank you for the well researched information, which will, unfortunately, be dismissed off hand by those who need the truth the most.
And yet, utterings from a supposed 'Mary' are taken to heart by ALL Catholics!!!
Go figger!!
Isn’t it a little strange that for some RCs the LEADER - the SUPREME PONTIFF - of the Roman Catholic church cannot teach with any “authority”???
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.