Posted on 09/16/2017 1:21:07 PM PDT by ebb tide
The group "Spezzare il pane" ("Breaking the Bread") in the archdiocese of Turin, Italy, has officially started with the celebration of "ecumenical masses" where Holy Communion is distributed to Catholics and non-Catholics.
The group is headed by Father Fredo Oliviero, an apologist for illegal immigration, who has the support of his archbishop, Monsignor Cesare Nosiglia. The practice of the group to distribute Holy Communion to non-Catholics, is openly promoted in the newspaper of Turin Archdiocese "La Voce e il Tempo".
Among the members of the group are "Catholics", Anglicans, Baptists, Waldensians and Lutherans. They gather once a month in one of their churches, where they celebrate a "Eucharist" according to the respective denomination, distributing "Communion" to everybody.
According to Fra Cristoforo, writing on maurizioblondet.it, these abuses are recommended by Pope Francis. Archbishop Nosiglia is informed about them but does not intervene. The future goal is to spread such gatherings to other Italian cities.
Distributing Holy Communion to people who do not share the Catholic Faith and have not previously confessed their sins, profanes the Holy Species, leads the participants to condemnation, and promotes superstition.
I disagree that Begoglio is a legitimate pope. Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) attempted to bifurcate the papacy, by keeping for himself the munus contemplative aspect of the office, but disposing himself of the governing aspect. This cannot be done, and it is a violation of Cannon 188.
Benedict is still wearing the papl vestments - no other “resigned” pope in Church history has done that.
Benedict is holding the papal title of “pope emeritus” - again, no provision in Catholic doctrine for such position, nor has such practice ever occurred heretofore in Church history.
Benedict remains in the papal residence - same issue.
Since a bifurcation of the papacy cannot be legitimate, then it makes Benedict’s resignation objectively flawed - and thus null and void, per Cannon 188.
Therefore, Benedict XVI is STILL the legitimate pope - and Bergoglio is nothing but an imposter, an anti-pope. Which means that none of his edicts, decisions, encyclicals, canonizations, etc. hold any validity. They are all equally null and void.
I strongly suggest you refrain from calling Jorge Bergoglio “pope” - because, in doing so, you lend legitimacy to the lie that may result in uncountable souls being damned for eternity.
SubMareener, and a few others here at FR, apparently believe the world is ending in a few days. Now, that’s at least what they were saying several months ago. I do not know if they have softened on that stark conclusion or not. They clearly think something of eschatological significance is happening next week.
This is how Bergoglio works: little steps, mostly by OTHER PEOPLE, but on countless fronts. He attacks the Church mostly by his thunderous silences.
There are so many fronts, it’s impossible to say which one will force Catholics out of “the Catholic Church”—openly and juridically.
Bergoglio and his people hope that THEY will own all the buildings and control all the juridical mechanisms of the Church, so they can proclaim that the Catholics have “gone into schism.”
Will it be when Cupich, McElroy, Wuerl, O’Malley, Dolan, et al., finally go just a little too far in their long-standing support for abortion—with no action or word from Bergoglio?
Will it be when these same bishops’ support for sodomy becomes just a little bit too explicit—with no action or word from Bergoglio?
Will it be when a non-retired Catholic bishop “in good standing” ordains a female—with no action or word from Bergoglio?
Will it be some celebration of this “ecumenical mass” by some prelate who is a little bit too prominent to be ignored—with no action or word from Bergoglio?
Is this connected with the Woman Clothed with the Sun, giving birth to the King, etc., etc.? I thought that was still some months away.
BTW - yes. And Father Gruner (RIP). And Ann Barnhardt. And the homilies of the Traditional Catholic priests within “the Resistance” movement that came about when SSPX Bishop Felay betrayed the legacy and mission Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
“Benedict is still wearing the papl vestments - no other “resigned” pope in Church history has done that.”
There has not been a resignation (until Benedict) in many, many centuries and there was no “papal vestments” at that time. Seriously, the papal whites are a “recent” innovation of the 16th century.
“Benedict is holding the papal title of “pope emeritus” - again, no provision in Catholic doctrine for such position, nor has such practice ever occurred heretofore in Church history.”
It’s not doctrinal. It’s practical. It’s a title, not an office. It was so people would know how to address him and to ensure he would - by his own written laws - be able to stay at the Vatican so that he would never be used as a weapon against any successor.
Don’t feel bad. Even Vatican archbishops aren’t getting this right: http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/05/04/vatican-archbishop-i-do-not-agree-with-the-title-pope-emeritus/
“Is this connected with the Woman Clothed with the Sun, giving birth to the King, etc., etc.? I thought that was still some months away.”
I am not sure where this came from. Even Fox News has picked up on it but probably with a different story behind it:
Would it be wrong for a Catholic to take Communion in a Baptist Church? If this “cross communionism” is wrong then it should be announced prior to handing out the crackers and grape juice.
Benedict said he was resigning “in such a way that the See will be vacant” and “it will be necessary to hold a conclave” to elect a new Pope.
The words “the See will be vacant” are ABSOLUTELY AND EXACTLY SYNONYMOUS with “there will be no Pope.” That a conclave will be needed only makes this more clear.
Ann Barnhardt’s claim that Benedict’s goofy ideas about his status AFTER his resignation make the act of resignation invalid doesn’t hold water, because the “substantial error” she points to IS NOT ABOUT THE RESIGNATION.
Every RELEVANT notion that Benedict held about his resignation was absolutely accurate: He was Pope. He wanted to resign. The Pope CAN resign. He stated he was resigning, and that “the See will be vacant.”
Once he resigned, Ratzinger became an old man who once WAS Pope, AND who held goofy ideas about his status.
But NONE OF HIS GOOFY IDEAS was about the act of resignation.
Ann Barnhardt sees so clearly that Bergoglio hates God, Jesus Christ, Mary, the Eucharist, Matrimony, the Catholic Church, and the human race, that she cannot accept that he is the actual Pope. She clings to the notion that Ratzinger failed to resign in order to keep her head from exploding.
The fact remains that a pope cannot claim to dispose himself of the governing aspect of the Church, but claim to hold the contemplative aspect. This is an intrinsically flawed position that violates Cannon 188.
Benedict, in his own words of “resignation” stated his purpose of doing that which is illicit: bifurcating the papacy. His resignation is therefore fundamentally flawed and invalid.
Not in Scripture. There is no sacramental system that imputes any grace.
"The Sacraments are HIS works.
Not in Scripture. There is no sacramental system that imputes any grace.
"Likewise, He gives us grace using physical things and all of that grace comes from His death on the cross.
Not in Scripture. There is no sacramental system that imputes any grace.
"I think, in a sense, you’re cheapening the power and grace of God when you say He only imputes His righteousness.
"only" is a limited view of the "incredible gift" God gives when He imputes/credits the Righteousness of Christ to a believer.
"Therefore IT WAS also CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 23 Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, 24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification." (Romans 4)
"No, through the power of God’s grace we are actually transformed (Romans 12:2).
A separate reality and blessing.
And indeed, the believer who entrusts himself to Him alone is made the "righteousness of Christ."
The Lamb is worthy. Our acceptance of Him as our Lord and Savior makes us worthy.
“The Lamb is worthy. Our acceptance of Him as our Lord and Savior makes us worthy.”
Right on.
Non-Catholics have been receiving communion at the Novus Ordo “mass” for decades now. JPII’s Code of Canon Law authorizes it.
Oh I don’t know about that....
Again you put a date to the end of the age. A big no-no.
As to your previous statements - I complete disagree.
Reference this article: https://nonvenipacem.com/2017/07/03/count-me-in-moral-certitude-and-the-invalid-abdication-of-pope-benedict-xvi-still-reigning/
In his final general audience, 27 Feb 2013, he said this: (emphasis mine)
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.
The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130227.html
"Now, combine those words with his decision to retain the papal title as an emeritus, to retain the vesture, to physically remain at the Vatican, etc etc. This is the evidence that is contemporary with the (supposed) abdication. It doesn’t invalidate the other evidence, where he says he is renouncing, but it sure is a serious counterweight to it."
Here is an explanation, excerpted from I letter I received today from Scott Lively:
“There is a rare astronomical event occurring on September 23, that appears to match thew description in Revelation 12: the Sun will be in the zodiac constellation of Virgo - “a woman clothed with the sun.” The Moon will be at the feet of Virgo - “with the moon under her feet.” Nine stars of the zodiac constellation Leo, plus three planets (Mercury, Venus, and Mars), will be at the head of Virgo - “on her head, a crown of 12 stars.” The planet Jupiter will be in the center of Virgo, and, as the weeks pass after September 23, Jupiter will exit Virgo to the east, past her feet, so to speak - “She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.” Jupiter is the largest of the planets, the “king” of the planets, so to speak - “She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.” This display occurs nine months from November 20, 2016, when Jupiter (the King planet) entered into the body (womb) of the constellation Virgo (the virgin) - adding a unique element to the convergence of heavenly signs.”
Excuse the obvious question: “Scripture” - insofar as that which composes the books of “the Bible” - did not exist for the first 400 years of the Church. And since it was the Catholic Church who authored the book we know as the Bible, then it is for the Catholic Church to discern its meaning in context ... which is why we say the Catholic Church is a “teaching Church” ... So, what did Christians have as a spiritual guide in the nearly four centuries before the Bible existed? They had the TRADITION of the Church.
If there are no sacraments, then what was the point of Christ’s instructions to the Apostles in regard to forgiving sins and holding them bound (Confession)?
If there exist no sacraments in the Church, then just what is Baptism?
If there are no sacraments, then just what is the descent of the Holly Ghost upon the apostles? (Confirmation)
If there are no sacraments, then just what is the Eucharist as was consubstantiated by Christ at the “Last supper” on the eve of His Passion? “This is my Body ...” “This is my Blood ...”
If there are no sacraments, then how is it that Christ sanctified marriage, and declared its indissolubility?
If there is no priesthood, and all can believe whatever they personally wish to believe, then why bother having apostles (bishops) at all? Why not simply have Christ miraculously produce a Bible, ready to go?
BTW - if every belief is valid, then, logically, none are valid. Logic dictates that two diametrically opposing views cannot both be right.
The “Petrine ministry” is not “the papacy.” Ratzinger uses the term “Petrine ministry” precisely because it’s NOT “the papacy.”
If the See is vacant, there is no Pope, because the Pope is the OCCUPANT of the See of Rome. I.e., the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and the bishop of Rome is the Pope.
NOTHING that Ratzinger may think or say about what he is doing NOW (praying, wearing white, etc.) has any bearing whatsoever on the act of resignation. He specified the NATURE of his act of resignation by stating explicitly that its OBJECT would be that “the See will be vacant.”
Ratzinger never said, “My successor will not pray, because I will be praying,” etc. I.e., Ratzinger never said that his successor would NOT exercise the full power and authority and function of Pope, because Ratzinger was going to retain some of it. If Ratzinger had said that, that might call into question his resignation.
Again: Ratzinger NEVER said that his successor would be DEPRIVED of some aspect or exercise of the papacy, on the grounds that Ratzinger was KEEPING IT.
As to whether Bergoglio is Pope at this moment: Only God knows. You (and I) simply cannot make that judgment. As gut-wrenching as the thought may be: God has not entrusted you with a sliver of authority to make judgments of that nature.
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.