Posted on 07/07/2017 7:54:49 AM PDT by ebb tide
Today I attended a remarkable lecture by one of the most extraordinary speakers in the Anglophone world. He must remain anonymous, given the current climate in the Latin American banana republic the human element of the Church has become during this pontificate.
The theme of this riveting talk was an amusing examination of the claim, promoted incessantly by Pope Bergoglio’s henchmen — at this point in the Bergoglian debacle there is no other word for them — that the Pope is chosen directly by the Holy Ghost and that the Holy Ghost speaks through the Pope in some oracular fashion, so that his every utterance commands unquestioning obedience as “the voice of the Holy Spirit.”
This is nonsense, as our speaker reminded us, belied by even a cursory review of the history of the papacy (with evil intrigues and shockingly immoral behavior by a number of pontiffs) and by the very limited scope of papal infallibility as defined — infallibly — by the First Vatican Council. Our speaker noted that, as Cardinal Ratzinger once explained in answer to the question whether the Holy Ghost personally chooses each Pope: “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!... [T]he Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”
That is, the Holy Ghost acts to prevent the worst from happening, that being the total destruction of the Church, while allowing the operation of free will even to the extent of permitting acts and omissions that bring on an ecclesial crisis, including the election of a bad pope.
Thus, our guarantee of the integrity of Catholic doctrine is not that a particular Pope has said X or not-X for the first time in Church history, but rather that he says X or not-X in line with the constant teaching of the Church by the Popes, Councils and bishops down through the centuries. For as the First Vatican Council declared, “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”
Yet the papal henchmen now declare that Pope Bergoglio is the handpicked oracle of the Holy Ghost. But only him. For no such preposterous claim was made by the same characters (for example, Cardinal Schönborn, Cardinal Maradiaga, Cardinal Kasper and Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto) regarding the teaching of Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI on marriage and procreation (which Pope Bergoglio — alone among all the Roman Pontiffs in Church history — is busily attempting to undermine, as we see with the chaos designedly engendered by Amoris Laetitia, and his evident departure from the constant teaching of the Church on the intrinsic immorality and absolute permissibility of contraception).
Just how far the papal henchmen are willing to go with this nonsense in order to justify the words and deeds of the current Pope, over and against all the others, is seen in Cardinal Schönborn’s ludicrous anecdote about an encounter he had with a Latin American hours before the conclave of 2013:
The Cardinal said that just after a special Mass before the Conclave began he came across a couple from Latin America who are friends of his.
He said: “I met them outside the Basilica and I asked: ‘You have the Holy Spirit, can you give me advice for the Conclave that will start in a few hours?’
“And the woman whispered in my ear ‘Bergoglio’, and it hit me really: if these people say Bergoglio, that’s an indication of the Holy Spirit.”
Oh, come on. As if the plotting and scheming of the “St. Gallen mafia” had nothing to do with Bergoglio’s election. As if the history of the papacy were not littered with intrigues regarding the election of Popes.
Can we not think that this reduction of the Holy Ghost to a cheap deus ex machina in a humanly contrived narrative — Bergoglio the Chosen One — is, at least objectively, a sin against Him? And can we not think as well that the Church is suffering the consequences of this shameful abuse of the name of “the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father” and Who, as Our Lord Himself promised, “shall give testimony of Me” (Jn 15:26)?
Rough quote from Jesus: “Mess with me, I’ll forgive you. Mess with the HS, you’re cooked...”
Or something like that. :)
Who comes up with the concept that it is possible to commit a crime not against The Godhead as a whole, but just against one part of the Trinity?
There is a disconnect in the headline that completely unravels anything that the article might have said.
Matthew 12:31-32 says, “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”.
>>Who comes up with the concept that it is possible to commit a crime not against The Godhead as a whole, but just against one part of the Trinity?
******************************************************
Jesus, in Matthew 12:31.
The sin against the Spirit is the rejection of the Spirit. It is a rejection of salvation and God Himself. It is giving up and believing you can not be saved. It is best described as despair.
That’s the way I understand it as well
| 1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. |
Then how can the Pope be taken seriously when he claims to speak “ex cathedra”?
The former assertion would amount to claiming that the Pope possessed the gift of inspiration, which would effectively make everything he said equal to Scripture. That is heresy from a Catholic POV.
The latter is an assertion about what the Pope won't teach … nothing more. It's a claim that the Holy Spirit will prevent him from teaching something erroneous (concerning faith and morals) as dogmatic truth.
Despite the attempts of Protestant apologists to paint Catholics as believing that the utterances of Popes are equal to Scripture, that is not in fact what we believe.
What about Unam Sanctum?
Pope Urban II promised forgiveness of sins for for those fighting in the crusades. A sort of Christian jihad. I’d say that would be an erroneous teaching against faith and morals.
Probably an indulgence, not "forgiveness of sins". That's not teaching a doctrine -- a specific offer of pardon in a particular circumstance isn't a "doctrine" -- so it doesn't qualify as infallible teaching from the beginning, whether you think it was wrong or right.
It's "Unam Sanctam"; both adjectives modifying ecclesia (church) and must agree with its first-declension feminine gender. Here endeth the Latin lesson.
I see no error at all in Unam Sanctam, however, it should not be understood as an exhaustive treatise on the salvation (or the lack thereof) of non-Catholics; that was not its intention at all.
It was a rebuke aimed at a specific disobedient individual who was, at least formally, a Catholic and claimed to be such. (He also happened to be the very powerful King of France. The whole situation turned out not too well for Pope Boniface.)
Within Fulcher of Chartres account of pope Urban’s speech there was a promise of remission of sins for whoever took part in the crusade.
"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested."
The Pope made a false promise of remission of sins for fighting in a battle.
There is nothing in the NT to support this. Nothing.
I see no error at all in Unam Sanctam, however, it should not be understood as an exhaustive treatise on the salvation (or the lack thereof) of non-Catholics; that was not its intention at all.
Many Roman Catholics have tried to minimize this claim by the Pope. However, his words stand.
"For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgment if it has not been good." The bull ends, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
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.