Posted on 01/31/2021 9:03:03 PM PST by Its All Over Except ...
On January 30, 2021, Pope Francis told the Italian Bishops' National Catechetical Office "Vatican II [not The Council of Trent which was declared to be infallible] is "the magisterium of the Church".
Francis: “Either you are with the Church and therefore follow the Council, or you do not follow the Council or interpret it in your own way, according to your desire, you do not stand with the Church.”
But if Trent, A.) in concert with four papacies, was declared to be infallible, B.) all the previous Councils that Trent agreed with, and C.) all popes after Trent who agreed with Trent were infallible but now conflict with Vatican II are suddenly now not in agreement with his magisterium, how then can Francis say he, a pope, and Vatican II are infallible?
Point is, by attempting to torpedo the infallibility of others he torpedoes his own and Vatican II infallibility.
If Francis were to declare that Vat II and his papacy cannot be undone, he has already been beaten to this by Trent's citing of Apostolic Tradition. Trent and the 4 papacies with it citing "Apostolic Tradition" thereby anchored the Council of of Trent in the Sacred Scriptures/New Testament. Ergo, Pope Francis would essentially be claiming authority greater than scriptures themselves.
And Francis did not explain how Vat II and one pope, himself, overrides Trent and 4 popes and all the popes after Trent agreeing with it and those popes.
It seems even broader than that according to popes who taught that,
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "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," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "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... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "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," and not 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," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
The NT church never taught that
Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.
For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
But which is just one of the many distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
It sure is good that Catholicism has one centralized authority to determine what correct doctrine is so people don’t stray from it, isn’t it?
Then they can show us be example, the unity of belief that comes from having one authority that everyone can follow.
Now there’s no arguing or quibbling about the fines points of doctrine since everyone believes and agrees with the dictates of the Vatican.
Right?
Source?
Someone, i e., Bergoglio, who sold out to the demonic, pagan Pachamama by inviting the devotees onto sacred ground and blessesd the idol axiomatically has no power, authority, etc.
When Bergoglio sold out to the demonic, pagan Pachamama after invitimg the devotees onto sacred ground and blessing the idol, he proved he had no authority and is thus an antipope like others throughout history.
Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful, to Francis, etc, and must be a continuation of them from Sacred Scripture all the way through church history until now:
“But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
Vatican II does not adhere to the above RCC demand.
Instead Jesus, His word has authority, Jesus is authoritative. And this touches the heart. Jesus' teaching has the same authority as God who speaks; for with a single command He easily frees the possessed man from the evil one, and heals him.(emphasis mine)
Library of the Apostolic Palace
Sunday, 31 January 2021
Most all Catholics know that Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
the question is..”does Pope Francis?!”
Vatican II was an exercise of the ego of the college of Cardinals
Bergoglio may just be learning this. LOL.
Scalfari claims Pope does not believe Jesus 'the man' was divine
You are simply not in the position to decide that. I showed you what past popes required.
That USED to be the basic party line but now the TradCaths essentially operate as evangelicals should, making the veracity of church teachings subject to examination in the light of ancient church teaching (though for us, Scripture).
Wrong.
The Council of Trent, which lined up with previous councils, was spanned by four papacies which bolstered Trent, and bolstered by numerous popes long after Trent is essentially being challenged in many ways bu Francis.
So this isn’t about me, so don’t deflect to me.
Francis is defeated by what past popes required.
So it isn’t about me, it is about what past popes require of YOU and Francis.
If this keeps up; SOMEone is gonna get renamed Martin Luther II
Mary's teaching has the same authority as God who speaks; for with a list of fifteen promises...
But History tends to disagree:
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
In that time giving the keys implied giving authority. Read Isaiah 22 about Eliakem. You assume Jesus meant Peter’s faith instead of actually loo EWTN Bible 2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. king at what he said.
Also in the NT there is only one church they and it continues as an unbroken chain from the 12 Disciples through the Bishops of the church. It is only the Catholic Church that continues from Jesus Christ to today and as you see from the NT the church Jesus established is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth not the NT.
Read the early church fathers and you will see the church in the NT is the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther (like Francis) opposed many of the ancient teachings of the Church. But how could he convince people that the historic church was wrong in its beliefs, and that he was right? He needed an authority that he could appeal to, and claim was higher than that of the Universal Church. He seized upon the Bible, introducing a new doctrine, Sola Scriptura, which said that Scripture Alone could be used to define Christian doctrine. The ancient teachings and Apostolic tradition of the Church could then be discarded as of no value whatsoever. So how can Francis do away with that which he is opposed to?
Francis acts as if no pope or council came before he and Vat II and that they arent subject to the council of Trent, other councils, and popes who taught opposite if Francis.
Francis is doing the same, he is introducing tbings contrary to numerous popes, councils, etc. His inviting of the pagan, demonic Pachamama devotees onto sacred ground and blessing the idol and allowing it to be paraded in front of the high altar goes against everything past.
Francis acts as if he and Vat II are pope of popes, council of councils, look upon them and despair! But he cannot ovverride the following:
Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful, to Francis, etc, and must be a continuation of them from Sacred Scripture all the way through church history until now:
“But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it *in accordance with Revelation itself,* which all are obliged to *abide by and be in conformity with,* that is, *the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety* through the legitimate succession of bishops and *especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,* and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
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.