Posted on 01/05/2020 6:00:35 PM PST by ebb tide
Read Pope Pius XI's words again:
".... 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.....
We aren't speaking of a "single pope" when we speak of Bergoglio. We speak of a false pope.
A true pope is guided by Jesus Christ in all things that touch upon faith or morals. Nowhere does Pius XI limit how a true pope teaches on faith and morals. In fact he states very clearly that it isn't just in his solemn definitions.
The very fact that Bergoglio teaches heresy to the Universal Church ...even in his encyclicals and his catechisms...is the reason that we can judge Bergoglio for what he is: a false pope.
You are correct . The blind cannot see and will follow the apostate Roman sect right into the arms of the one world religion led by the false prophet.
Your comments basically prove my point....God requires of US to decide between good and evil. I don’t need an encyclical from a long-dead Pope to figure that one out.
WE have to decide whether Bergoglio is a “fake pope” or a real one, in the only way that works...buy his fruits.
“ This Pope shall pass and GOD is still in charge....keep Jesus in your heart and receive the Sacraments as often as possible.”
And if you can find yourself a Traditional Latin Mass. You’ll love it.
“ The very fact that Bergoglio teaches heresy to the Universal Church ...even in his encyclicals and his catechisms...is the reason that we can judge Bergoglio for what he is: a false pope.“
The Church has had false popes before. She survives.
That's pretty disrespectful of a true pope of the Catholic Church....dead or not.
And no, I didn't prove *your* point. You kept stating that we don't need to believe in what popes teach about faith and morals outside of their solemn definitions. My point is yes, we do. Why? Because that is what the Church has always taught .... from those so-called "long-dead popes".
The only reason why we don't have to believe Bergoglio's teachings is because he teaches the Universal Church heresy. We don't have to believe it, not because we don't have to believe what encyclicals or catechisms say about faith and morals (which is a false assertion), but because no true pope can teach heresy to the Universal Church.
There is a clear distinction here between your point and my point.
No....I used to go to Latin Mass, but I like the English way better.....I go every day.
Oh, bullbleep....it's a simple statement of fact.
"And no, I didn't prove *your* point. You kept stating that we don't need to believe in what popes teach about faith and morals outside of their solemn definitions. My point is yes, we do. Why? Because that is what the Church has always taught .... from those so-called "long-dead popes"."
No, we have to ASSENT to those teachings. We CAN believe that they are wrong-headed and, sometimes, based on erroneous assumptions (like John Paul II's changes to the Church's position on societal use of the death penalty, which was most certainly NOT "what the Church has always taught").
"The only reason why we don't have to believe Bergoglio's teachings is because he teaches the Universal Church heresy.
Which is and has been my point all along....which you have just agreed with again.
"We don't have to believe it, not because we don't have to believe what encyclicals or catechisms say about faith and morals (which is a false assertion), but because no true pope can teach heresy to the Universal Church."
No. Once again.....ASSENT is NOT the same as BELIEF. We have to OBEY those encyclicals.
How is believing what the Supreme Pontiff teaches us in his ordinary, authentic magisterium is wrong-headed and erroneous being obedient as a Catholic should be obedient?
Your understanding of "assent" is faulty. Religious obedience does not mean we are free to declare or believe such things are wrong in any way. It demands complete acceptance.
Per Fr H.G. Hughes, theologian, 1906:
Having now inquired into the obligations of Catholics in regard to infallible pronouncements of the Church, there remains to be considered a third class of authoritative decisions which also have a binding force upon the faithful. The Church does not in all her pronouncements intend to exercise in full her supreme prerogative of infallibility. The reason for this we may suppose to be a merciful regard for human weakness, and a desire to give erring souls every opportunity of retraction before the final definitive sentence goes forth which would cast them out of the fold if they remained obdurate. Hence she frequently utters, in the exercise of her authority to teach and govern Christ’s flock, words of warning, exhortation or direction, in virtue not of her infallibility, but of her ordinary ecclesiastical authority. When she thus speaks, it is without doubt the duty of Catholics to listen and to submit their judgment to that of their pastors. This assent is one of religious obedience rather than of faith, though. It does pertain, in a certain degree, to the latter virtue.
If a man wishes to exercise perfectly the virtue of temperance, he must not only avoid downright excess, but must put a general restraint upon himself in regard to all things which might endanger temperance. So, too, a Catholic, in order to keep thoroughly sound and whole the virtue of faith which God has given him, must not be content with avoiding out-and-out heresy, but must be prepared to steer clear of everything which approaches in the slightest degree thereto. It is to direct us in avoiding such things that the Church speaks from time to time warning words, which, though they are not in the nature of infallible pronouncements, demand, nevertheless, our ready attention and complete acceptance….
After all, when the Church speaks, even when she does not speak with all the weight of her infallible utterance, she does invariably give us safe guidance; for, though the speculative truth or falsity of some matter which she treats in this particular way may be, for a time, a matter of question, there can be no question at all that a Catholic is practically secure in listening to the voice of those whom God has set as bishops and pastors to rule the Church….
Enough has been now said, I hope, to show in general what are the obligations of Catholics in matters of faith and in those things which pertain in any way to the doctrines of faith. And to a Catholic there is nothing burdensome in all this. He knows that the Church is his divinely-given teacher and guide in all that concerns his eternal salvation; he is ready, whenever and however she speaks, to listen and to obey. He has the same trust in her that a child has in his mother. When she speaks to him he does not require to know, before he obeys her, precisely what grade of her authority she is acting upon. Sometimes, indeed, she does speak in strong terms, making it quite clear that any who withhold their assent will thereby make shipwreck of the faith and be cast out of the fold; but she does not always choose to speak thus, nor is it needed. A good mother will not always accompany her commands, firm though they be, with threats of punishment. So it is with the Church. She knows well that her faithful children will render willing submission to her slightest word, and she reserves the thunders of anathema for great crises that must be sharply dealt with.
No good Catholic will take advantage of this to allow himself any freedom of opinion short of downright heresy. A Catholic knows that, short of heresy, he may yet sin gravely against the virtue of faith, by failure to think and believe with the Church. And in thus assenting to the Church’s teaching, he in no way abdicates his reason; for his assent is not a blind and unreasoning one. On the contrary, it is eminently reasonable.
…[B]eing the teacher of truth, the Church can never bring forward and impose upon her children anything contradicting reason. To be the bearer of a divine message and at the same time to contradict the truth of reason is an impossibility. There is no need, therefore, to examine singly every Catholic dogma, to look up every decision of Popes and councils since the Church began, in order to find out whether you can bring yourself to give adhesion to them. If you are certain that the Church speaks in God’s name you can rest assured also that no dogma of hers will cause you uneasiness. You know she can not teach anything that is false; you trust her, therefore, in matters which may not as yet have come to your own knowledge, or been submitted to your personal investigation.
https://archive.org/details/essentialsandnon00hughuoft/page/n29
If you believe that a Catholic is obeying/assenting despite the fact that he/she is also calling into question/disagreeing/judging erroneous papal pronouncements, then you need to provide Church teaching that supports that belief.
His mask dropped?
It’s not much of a mask to begin with.
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.