Posted on 10/23/2014 6:54:57 PM PDT by ebb tide
He was not what she was expecting, in several ways. The man who would one day be Pope Francis had come to hold a service far from the grandeur of the great cathedral of Buenos Aires
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
“More than half of the Catholic church’s leaders voted for changes – in attitudes to gay and divorced people”
Wrong. They voted for a continued dialog. They can’t change anything. That’s not what the Synod was about.
Patterns don’t seem to matter.
You apparently represent one of two sides, one expressed by poster nanetteclaret a year ago, whom i have pings out of courtesy:
Read Pope St. Pius X’s Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” which was published in 1907. It condemned Modernism as a heresy and describes Modernism found in every facet of thought, from theology to philosophy. When you do, you will realize that Pope Francis is a walking, talking demonstration of Modernism and as such he is spouting heresy. Pope Paul IV’s Encyclical “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio” makes it clear that any prelate - including the Pope - who promotes heresy has no authority because he does not teach what the Church teaches, and therefore everything he says is null and void
And the second from SpirituTuo,
Whether you like or dislike the Popes from Bl. John XXIII to the present is irrelevant. They have been duly elected by the Cardinal Electors, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as Supreme Pontiff. They have received the negative power of infallibility, which neither you, nor I have.
My questions as a non-Catholic evangelical are, are RCs to allow the pope and modern magisterium interpret past teaching by what they say and do, or are they do dissent from it based upon how they see historical teaching? Are Trinitarian baptized Prots Christians "who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour," "united with Christ" "within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities" "and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church"? (LUMEN GENTIUM)
Even though in good conscience they cannot acknowledge the Roman Catholic church as the uniquely one true church. And what of EOS who reject universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, the RC idea of purgatory, and other things?
I see both sides here, some affirming us as born again children of God while others affirm the killing of Prots by the Inquisitions, even if they do not identify themselves as SSPX or SSPV.
What makes side correct and the other incorrect? The weight of historical evidence or what modern Rome says now? Thanks. I will post back later.
How can there be 15 posts when yours is only the 4th one?
The basic issue which I am trying to point out is that the heresy of Modernism says that there is no way to know the Truth. Modernists deny 1) that Truth has been revealed by God and that 2) there is a black and white, and right and wrong, because God has said so. We have all heard people say, “Well, that might be true for you, but it isn’t for me,” or “Since there’s no way to know what is true, I’ll just believe what I want (or not).” This attitude began with Pilate, when he asked Jesus, “What is truth?” (John 18:38) Even the pagan philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle knew that there was an ultimate Truth. This is why when we hear Pope Francis say things like, “Who am I to judge?” we know that he is spouting Modernism. A pope who believes that God has given us Commandments would say something to the effect that in charity, he hopes the person would repent and be reconciled to God. He completely shirked his duty as a shepherd of souls.
In the past, all of the popes built on other popes’ teachings, when they issued their encyclicals. The first popes built on the Apostles’ teaching and then every pope since then has built on that. Encyclicals are to clarify teachings which the Church has always taught, so when a pope starts verbalizing ideas which the Church has NEVER taught, then we are correct to be alarmed.
As to your other question, I was baptized and brought up as a Presbyterian. I did learn the Faith, although imperfectly, because a lot was left out. You must remember that all Protestant groups were once Catholic, however far back one has to search to find the roots. That is why most Protestants still believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension and other basics, and are not Arians, Gnostics, Donatists, Nestorians or believe some other weird heresy. At least most Protestants do get the basics, although a few years after I became Episcopalian, I realized that having the Magisterium was a good deterrent to keeping the Church from going off the cliff into heresy as the Episcopal church has done (denying the Resurrection, Virgin Birth, etc. etc.). The Episcopal church is no longer even Christian. That was when I realized that having a Magisterium is a good thing!
I hope I have answered your questions and feel free to FReepmail me if you have others.
You ask very good questions. In my opinion, there is a lot of hype about Pope Francis. The press has a longing for him to do certain things that he can not do. There are some very devout, orthodox Catholics who don’t like his style and are being negatively influenced by the press.
Some have taken to believe how he is represented in the press as true, and allow these accounts to confirm their own fears. Vigilance is important, but many criticisms I have read, in my opinion, are way off the mark.
While I neither judge them, nor criticize them, I am seeing an attitude that at worst, is pride (in their own habits, norms, and preferences), and at best, an unnecessary fear the Holy Spirit isn’t doing its job to protect the church.
When it comes to the teaching of the Church, dogma will not change, with one exception. The Pope has the authority to proclaim (or declare something held generally true) a dogma or dogmatic teaching. We believe that he would be prevented by the Holy Spirit from proclaiming any dogma which is contrary to Divine Revelation, the Gospel, etc.
As for other Christians of good will, it is important to recognize the papacy is about many things, but one of the most important things is continuity.
Regarding communion with other Christians, we are unified in Trinitarian baptism, the belief in Jesus, and the essentials of the Apostles’ Creed. While we pray for unification, but we recognize there is division.
I don’t know what you mean by EOS, so I can’t answer that.
The heart of your question is whether to believe the ancient and unchanging teachings of the Church, or what some new guy says, the general answer is to believe the ancient and unchanging teachings of the Church. However, let us not confuse discipline and dogma. There are people who get riled up about Vatican II. While they are right to get riled up about the confusion following the Council, no new doctrine or dogma was presented.
In summary, other Christians shouldn’t worry. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is available free, online) defines very clearly what is to be believed, not the New York Times.
Continue to keep your faith in Christ, seek always the Truth, and pray without ceasing. God loves you!
Which ones are those? Which Commandments is he rejecting?
Multiple threads.
Ok.
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.