Posted on 05/26/2015 1:05:01 PM PDT by piusv
"I feel like saying something that may sound controversial or even heretical. But there is someone who knows that despite our differences we are one. It is he who is persecuting us. It is he that is persecuting Christians today; he who is anointing us with the blood of martyrdom, knows that Christians are disciples of Christ. That we are one, that we are brothers! He doesn't care if they are Evangelicals, Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic. He doesn't care! They are Christians."
Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful question. I see in you such a gracious spirit. Let me try to answer here, because others may be interested as well.
Pope Francis didn't just say that the devil thinks that all Christians are one, but that the devil knows we are all one.
This suggests that the Pope himself considers this one-ness of all Christians to be true as well.
This is controversial because it is in apparent contradiction to statements made by popes in official teachings, such as at the 15th century Council of Florence, and elsewhere, stating that no one who knows that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church as the means of salvation for the entire world, and who nevertheless refuses to enter the Church or remain in Her, can be saved.
This sounds terrifically exclusive and severe, except that most Catholics --- following the emphasis of the Second Vatican Council --- point out that hey, that applies only to those who KNOW that the Catholic Church is the one Christ founded, and who NEVERTHELESS refuse to become Catholic.
That's a category which arguably has very few people in it. Most people who "KNOW" that the Catholic Church is Christ's Church, become and remain Catholic; whereas most people who "DON'T KNOW" that, are innocent of apostasy or schism or heresy because they didn't know any better.
I realize this is getting long-winded. Still with me?
So Pope Francis came off sounding like a doctrinal indifferentist --- and he even said he knew he sounded heretical, but what the heck --- when actually, if you parse it real fine, you see that he did not state formal heresy.
The Second Vatican Council went a long ways towards a more "fraternal" attitude toward non-Catholic Christians, as exemplified in the Catechism at #818 and 819 and #838.
Note that these don't directly smack-on contradict what previous Council and Popes have said, but instead deal with the implicit question, "Yeah, but what about the many non-Catholics who don't KNOW that they need to be Catholics?" Thus these newer, more "ecumenical" documents implicitly assume that the non-Catholics in question are sincere, blameless in their ignorance on this point, and hoping to be saved by grace and faith in Christ Our Lord.
In which case the Church says, "WELL then! All us'n's, an' all-y'all, an' even your Momanem, are brothers and sisters in Christ!"
:o)
Please do go to the linked citations from the Catechism. The more context you read, the more sense it will make. It's worth the 3 - 4 minutes of your time.
Thanks, Mrs. D. I am a non-Catholic, but a serious Christian believer. I appreciate the willingness of Vatican II, and of Pope Francis, to respect my disagreement with the Roman magisterium and to regard me nevertheless as a real Christian. I am grateful that the Pope acknowledges that I am his brother in Christ. We are on the same side against Satan and his confederation of evil in these last days.
"You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19
So some of what the demons believe is true, right?
Thanks, Mrs. D. I have read the links. It does appear that those who don’t know to be joined to the Catholic Church are not held accountable for their lack of knowledge. That allows acceptance for a large number of non-Catholics, apparently.
StormPrepper, Catholics believe that, despite all their errors, human weaknesses, personal failings, and dubious opinions, no pope will ever be able to, in the full and formal sense, incorporate an error into the dogmas of the Church as a matter to be adhered to by all the faithful.
That means that the Church, or parts of it, is indeed in danger--- and always HAS been in danger --- of being swayed this way and that by competing opinions and so forth, BUT no dingbat pope will ever be able to actually turn his erroneous opinion into a doctrine de fide.
This handy-dandy chuckliferous 2-minute video by the notorious John Zmirak, over at the Bad Catholic's Bingo Hall, explains why. Click on the link, it's worth the 2 minutes and it's purt'near guaranteed to make you smile, or at least roll your eyes.
“He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for Me, shall find it” Matt 10:39
RnMom, this is incorrect.
No everything said in a Council is considered infallible. LINK. You have to distinguish between a theological opinion (theologuemenon), Ordinary Magisterium, and Universal Magisterium.
I realize this seems technical, and it is. But the simplest way to put the point, is that only some part of a document which is specifically a solemn definitions concerning faith or morals approved by the pope, and which are not merely temporary or local but meant to be binding on the whole Church, are infallible.
It's flagged with introductory words of the utmost solemnity, like,
Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity,...by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord,...We declare, pronounce, and define that this doctrine is revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful... Hence, if anyone shall dare to think otherwise, let him know that he has separated from the unity of the Church...
Or words similarly expressing infallible intent.
I think the underlying reality is "The Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7)
Good thoughts, Genoa. It pains me when any follower of the Lord Jesus fails to see the other believers as “Brothers and Sisters in Christ.”
That's a DARNED good question!!
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.
Ha!
You guys ain't even 'smart' enough to read the Bible and understand it!
...truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward; unless he's a Protestant." --Rome
If he DOES go there; he might not be able to admit it openly.
Number Seven casts a WIDE net!
|
Temple Recommend Questions
1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? 2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? 3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? 4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? 5 Do you live the law of chastity? 6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church? 7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? 9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? 10 Are you a full-tithe payer? 11 Do you keep the Word of Wisdom? 12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations? 13 If you have previously received your temple endowment: Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple? Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple? 14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been? 15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances? |
Oh, knock it off, Elsie. You know that’s not true.
Knowledge does NOT equal Understanding!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0&feature=youtu.be
I 'know' what Roime has produced.
Does THAT count for anything??
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
JP2 was the last pope..
Popes in official teachings, such as at the 15th century Council of Florence, and elsewhere, stated that no one who knows that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church as the means of salvation for the entire world, and who nevertheless refuses to enter the Church or remain in Her, can be saved.
This sounds terrifically exclusive and severe, except it applies only to those who KNOW that the Catholic Church is the one Christ founded, and who NEVERTHELESS refuse to become Catholic.
That's a category which arguably has very few people in it. Most people who "KNOW" that the Catholic Church is Christ's Church, become and remain Catholic; whereas most people who "DON'T KNOW" that, are innocent of apostasy or schism or heresy because they didn't know any better.
So Pope Francis came off sounding like a doctrinal indifferentist --- and he even said he knew he sounded heretical, but what the heck --- when actually, if you parse it real fine, you see that he did not state formal heresy.
The Second Vatican Council went towards a more "fraternal" attitude toward non-Catholic Christians, as exemplified in the Catechism at #818 and 819 and #838
. Note that these don't directly smack-on contradict what previous Council and Popes have said, but instead deal with the implicit question, "Yeah, but what about the many non-Catholics who don't KNOW that they need to be Catholics?" Thus these newer, more "ecumenical" documents implicitly assume that the non-Catholics in question are sincere, blameless in their ignorance on this point, and hoping rightfully to be saved by grace and faith in Christ Our Lord.
In which case the Church says, "WELL then! All us'n's, an' all-y'all, an' even your Momanem, are brothers and sisters in Christ!"
:o)
Please do go to the linked citations from the Catechism. The more context you read, the more sense it will make. It's worth the 3 - 4 minutes of your time.
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.