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 ...
Pope Francis hasn’t betrayed anyone, because there is no such a person as “Pope Francis”. “Anti-pope Francis” I will allow, but not “Pope Francis”.
All you authors, journalists, bloggers, and commenters are guilty of helping to prolong the lie that the man is the pope.
Says Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church that a heretic cannot be a Christian and therefore a heretic cannot be a pope.
So stop doing the Church a disservice by commenting on this travesty, heretic, and mouthpiece of Satan as “the Pope”!
Among other things, every year we host a week for homeless people to come to live at the church (BTW-this is in conjunction with a number of other churches including a Catholic church in the area). We are not allowed to evangelize or even help them find a job. We are simple to house them. I'm not sure this is a Christian principle and have become more and more convinced it is not. Especially if social services will not allow us to evangelize.
At first I thought there was something wrong with me, not caring for the poor enough. Yet the more I think about this and search the scriptures, I do not find any responsibility towards the poor in this manner. Rather it is just the opposite. We are called to be generous but that is all. Not to give away everything. Often people will quote the verse in Acts where the early Christians had “all things in common” pointing out how socialistic they were or they will misquote Christ saying to the rich, young ruler “give all you have to the poor” as a motto for Christian living. Yet they neglect to quote Paul statement that “if a man does not work he should not eat” or the number of Proverbs talking about failure to be productive. Even our Lord Jesus complained about people wanting free handouts (John 6).
The gospel was never about socialism nor having “all things in common”. The trouble is when you bring all this up you sound like a real Christian “creep” which is typical of liberal pressure.
In your opinion, is this statement of St Robert Bellarmine infallible?
I consider God infallible and His Word infallible. When any man goes against the Word of God and teaches others to do the same, he is not a man of God and is unworthy to be called such.
NO WAY!!!
“In your opinion, is this statement of St Robert Bellarmine infallible?”
Absolutely:
Due to the fact that his statement agrees with that of the infallible doctrine of the Church as taught by Popes. This is based on the following (see http://www.holywar.org/Ratzinger.htm):
“If anyone holds to one single one of these (heresies) he is not a Catholic.”
— Pope Leo XIII (from Encyclical Satis Cognitum:28)
________________________________________
What is Heresy?
“Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines.” (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).
What must we believe?
“By the divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Vatican Council I, Denzinger 1792)
Who does not believe all those things taught by the Magisterium of the Church?
“Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic.”(C. 1325)
Can a heretic be a valid Pope of the Roman Catholic Church?
No. The Papal Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV teaches that: if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope, even if he is elected unanimously by the Cardinals. Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antonius, St. Francis deSales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and many other tehologians all teach that a heretic cannot be a pope: “If however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” — St. Alphonsus Liguori, Church Doctor: Verita bella Fede. Pt. iii, Ch.viii, 9-10.
If the government is providing funding for the week, then they set the rules.
If they are not funding, then on what basis do they presume to tell you what to do?
His resistance to doctrine is invariably couched in elision and ambiguity rather than declarative refusal.
This makes Pope Francis comments no less dangerous; in fact, I would say MORE dangerous, since it always allows him to keep on sowing confusion while maintaining a certain plausible deniability.
Obama would make sin acceptable and good works sinful. :o)
You would know since it takes a dope to know a dope.
Just kidding, of course....
Yup.
Do you believe Ed Peters to be infallible? He has been known to change his mind; just like St JPII did on altar girls.
Exactly!
“If Obama was pope...”
_ _ _ _ _
How can you tell the difference?
Which is why I am teetering on leaving the Catholic Church.
Mr. Peters is fallible and deeply tied in to the Vatican II errors which include the fallacious revisions to the 1917 Cannon Law.
On the other hand, consider the following quote from practicing priests and bishop who adhere to the true teaching of the Church and her popes (while rejecting the modern heretical anti-popes) via this snippet from http://www.cmri.org/theolog.htm :
V. MODERN HIERARCHY OF THE VATICAN II CHURCH: In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the modern hierarchy who have approved and implemented the errors of Vatican II no longer represent the Catholic Church and her lawful authority. This most certainly includes the one who confirmed, approved, decreed, and implemented these heretical teachings, namely Paul VI (Montini). Likewise included are his successors, namely, John Paul II (Wojtyla) and Benedict XVI (Ratzinger), who have continued to implement these heretical teachings. Despite the lack of canonical warning and formal declaration of loss of office, their repeated acts of ecumenism and their enforcement of the heresies of Vatican II and the new code of Canon Law, which are injurious to faith and morals, are manifestations of their pertinacity in heresy.
THEREFORE, as the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches: “‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these words are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted...the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord.” Further, since John Paul II has manifestly taught heresy, promoted ecumenism and fostered interfaith worship, he clearly cannot be recognized as a successor of St. Peter in the primacy.
See more at: http://www.cmri.org/theolog.htm#sthash.GYAi2WUo.dpuf
YES!!!
I am familiar with the position, held by many sedevacantists, that there has not been a valid papacy since 1958, but I do not find it convincing.
No, I do not think Ed Peters is infallible. I am not citing him as a “argument from authority,” but on the reasonableness of his position that if there is not direct, explicit, incorrigible refusal of a doctrine, there is not formal heresy.
Papal scandal, yes. Pastoral malpractice, certainly. Material heresy, maybe. But not formal heresy.
The real pre-1958 Catholic Church does not teach heresy, error, or promote immorality. Look for its remnants instead if you can find them.
Hold the Faith whole and entire, no matter what.
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.