Posted on 05/13/2022 6:01:41 PM PDT by marshmallow
‘Mrs. Greene's statement about leaving the Church is as enlightening as it is saddening,’ commented Michael Hichborn, president of the Lepanto Institute.
(LifeSiteNews) – Following criticism of comments she made about the U.S. Catholic bishops, conservative firebrand U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed that she was raised Catholic but left the Church “with great sorrow” when she had kids because she had concerns about the left-wing hierarchy protecting abusive priests.
“With great sorrow, and unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, I stopped attending Catholic Mass when I became a mother, because I realized that I could not trust the Church’s leadership to protect my children from pedophiles, and that they harbored monsters even in their own ranks,” the now-evangelical said in a lengthy statement.
The Georgia Republican was responding to the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue, who slammed her for suggesting in an interview with Church Militant’s Michael Voris that “Satan is controlling the Church.”
“The Church is not doing its job. And it’s not adhering to the teachings of Christ,” she added.
“It’s the Church leadership I was referring to when I invoked the Devil,” Greene clarified on Twitter. “Just so we’re clear, bishops, when I said ‘controlled by Satan,’ I wasn’t talking about the Catholic Church. I was talking about you.”
“The Catholic Church must throw out these monsters instead of lecturing the people its own bishops have driven away,” she continued, blasting the U.S. Catholic bishops as “some of the worst in the world” and “scheming bureaucrats in miters.” It was the “bishops’ wickedness” that drove her out of the Church, Greene said, and her own refusal to “submit the spiritual and physical livelihood of my children to these monsters.”
Greene, who is sometimes referred to as “MTG” (à la “AOC”), went on to say what many faithful Catholics who.......
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Canon 32 teaches, If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32)Also,
First Vatican Council: So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. [so much for the EOs] — First Vatican Council, Chapter 3 (1869-1870)
However, as regards the force of such anathemas, RC apologist Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers / EWTN stated,
Vatican II did not revoke the anathemas of Trent. Anathema was a canon law penalty referring to a special form of excommunication done with a particular ceremony. Vatican II did not issue new canon law; therefore it did not revoke these anathemas. That being said, the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law did remove all penalties not repeated in it, and the anathema was not repeated. Therefore, the 1983 Code of Canon Law removed this penalty from the books. This change in canon law, however, did nothing to change points of doctrine that had previously been defined. Since the anathemas issued by prior councils were doctrinally infallible, the theological points established in these canons retain their infallible status. Though today they are not subject to the penalty of anathema since this penalty no longer exists, they are still subject to other canon law penalties, such a excommunication. In fact, the canonical crime of heresy carries with it an automatic imposition of the penalty of excommunication. Jimmy Akin - http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=379439&language=en
Rather, a christ who appearance does not correspond to what He appeared to be in His incarnation, that of manifestly physical and was, and instead appears as inanimate objects - which the true Christ never did - and yet which inanimate objects are said to not exist, yet which by every test of reality are only shown to be bread and wine, likewise the incarnated body of Christ would test to be just that, is another christ, not that of Scripture.
The latter is the Lord whom John identifies as Christ "come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2) versus one whose physical looks do not correspond to what He physically is. Certainly Jesus could feel our pain somehow without being incarnated, but the He chose to be so, and Scripture emphasize this, and even in His glorified physical body it was one of flesh and bones and in which He manifested His wounds and eat with the disciples, and thus His physicality identifies the true Christ.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested.. (1 John 1:1-2)
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2:14)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Hebrews 2:16)
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect [experientially], he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hebrews 5:8-9)
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27)
If is only because Catholic priests cannot product the bloody physical flesh of Christ (alleged rare miracles notwithstanding) which a literal understanding if "this is my body which is broken for you" would mean, that Catholic theologians have labored to explain how Catholics receive the whole of Christ, the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” "the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings. "being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” "Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
None of these gymnastic attempts to justify what is not what the NT church manifestly believed would be necessary if the most logical and Scriptural explanation was accepted. Which is that the apostles and NT church, being very familiar with metaphorical language, including the Canannite being said to be "bread" for Israel (Num. 14:9) and drinking water plainly being called "blood" since the noble men who obtained it risked their lives in so doing and thus David refused to drink it but poured it out unto the Lord; (2 Samuel 23:16-17) And with hearing the Word being called eating and drinking, ("eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David:" (Isaiah 55:1-3), then it is most reasonable that rather than the questioning and protesting Peter along with doubting Thomas and the rest of the apostles quietly believing in transubstantiation at the last supper, then they well understood the broken bread and poured wine as representing the body and blood of Christ. And in no place interpretive of the gospels (Acts thru Rev.) - not even in Hebrews - is there any discourse on this, and in the only epistle in which there is a clear description of the Lord's supper (with what was consumed stated to be "this bread"), it is the body of Christ not being recognized is that of the church, being "one bread." And with only the word of God being described as spiritual food. There is simply no reason for laboring to read into Scripture a meaning that is not what the totality of and especially the epistles teaches or manifests was believed. we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 37; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm)
And since as Scripture teaches, (James 2:18) what we do evidences what we truly believe, then the actions (and inactions) of the Vatican manifests how it interprets canon law. And since RCs are not to act like Bible Christians/classic evangelicals (cf. Acts 17:1) and ascertain the veracity of church teaching by examination of the warrant for it, for
'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.... (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)Then the RC is to look to how the "living magisterium" interprets past church teaching, and find unity thereby. But it is Trad. RCs who in essence act like Bible Christians in judging the validity of modern church teaching based upon their interpretation of past teaching, and thereby reject V2 part or parcel, that create disunity, while they attack Bible Christians for doing the same.
You mean esteeming men beyond above is written and thus being devoted to them, versus men who simply began churches.
And indeed, one of the clearest violations of the plain teaching of Scripture by Catholics is that of thinking of mortals far above that which is written, (1 Corinthians 4:6) esp. Mary.
- https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/
Note also that the (claimed) source (we gave you the Bible, etc.=required submission is argument that effectively invalidates the NT church. For it began in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of revelation, and which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church. Thus to require submission to these magisterial stewards would mean that NT 1st century souls should have submitted to all the judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses. Who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) Who thus challenged the authority of Christ. (Mk. 11:27-33)
Just review substance and accidents and Eucharist.
I hope this doesn't include me.
It can be shown, from the things that I post, that I am definitely NOT antiCatholic; but, instead; antiCatholicISM.
Heck; most everything I post comes from authentic Catholic literature; the most famous being known as the Bible.
Something like THIS???
"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)
"We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
--Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (A.D. 1302)
IF you just want a dictionary to tell you...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=anathema+definition+catholic&ia=web
Take Rahab out of the picture and YOU HAVE NO CHRIST either.
So; what's yer point?
Follow instead these true ancient men, who have set the principles of Catholicism in stone:
"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle?
For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.
Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher."Augustine (De bono viduitatis)
Someone who knows how those 7 Catholic churches in Asia got so far off of the tracks within the lifetime of John.
And, it appears, that Christanity is built upon it.
For instance...
Sounds like you may be a little brainwashed. Look up the history of the canon of the Bible for yourself.
I've tried finding this bible that Martin Luther alegedly removed writing from, but had no luck.
Can you post a link so I can see what you have made claims about?
I know you have more important things to do, but I sure could use some help here.
Face meet palm.
Here we go again!
So you agree that Augustine contradicts Catholic doctrine then?
I mean, I don’t see any attempts to dispute the quote Elsie gives; all I see is an attempt to change the subject.
I keep telling you, there was no Catholic canon for Blessed Brother Luther to cut any books from.
Stop believing Vatican lies and you won’t get so amusingly triggered when people tell you the truth.
“I keep telling you, there was no Catholic canon for Blessed Brother Luther to cut any books from.”
Of course there was. The Catholic Church defined its canon at the Council of Rome in 382. The Council of Trent only reaffirmed this. The Council of Trent wasn’t a FIRST affirmation.
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.