Contradictory Teachings: the Papolatrists’ Puzzle…editor
“The Mufti explained things very well to me, with such meekness, and using the Quran…” – Pope Francis
“I went to Turkey as a pilgrim, not a tourist…when I entered the Mosque, I couldn’t say: ‘Now, I’m a tourist!’ No, it was completely religious. And I saw that wonder! The Mufti explained things very well to me, with such meekness, and using the Quran, which speaks of Mary and John the Baptist. He explained it all to me….At that moment I felt the need to pray. I asked him: ‘Shall we pray a little?’ To which her esponded: ‘Yes, yes’. I prayed for Turkey, for peace, for the Mufti, for everyone and for myself, as I need it… I prayed, sincerely….Most of all, I prayed for peace, and I said: ‘Lord, let’s put an end to these wars!’ Thus, it was a moment of sincere prayer.” …Pope Francis at his press conference on board the flight returning from Turkey on November30, 2014.
“Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” …Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.” …Pope Francis, addressing immigrant Muslims in a Roman parish during the World Day of Migrants and Refugees on 19 January 2014
“They seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy” …Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
“I believe we are moving forward in our relations with the Orthodox; they have the sacraments and apostolic succession … we are moving forward. What are we waiting for? For theologians to reach an agreement? That day will never come, I assure you, I’m skeptical. Theologians work well but remember what Athenagoras said to Paul VI: “Let’s put the theologians on an island to discuss among themselves and we’ll just get on with things!”… We mustn’t wait. Unity is a journey we have to take, but we need to do it together. This is spiritual ecumenism: praying together, working together.” …Pope Francis, during his press conference on the flight returning from Turkey on November 30, 2014.
“All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed”…Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
“To dialogue means to believe that the “other” has something worthwhile to say, and to entertain his or her point of view and perspective. Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions,but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute.” Pope Francis, message for the 48th World Communications Day, “Communication at the Service of an Authentic Culture of Encounter,”June1, 2014 –Cfn>.9: 6
“Unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. …Pius XI, Mortalium Animos Source
Above is a glimpse of the problem faced by those Catholics today who insist that fidelity to the Church requires unquestioning obedience to “the pope”. How can they read the above starkly contrasting statements from two pontiffs, and keep a straight face as they insist that both are speaking the mind of Christ, and are guaranteed to be infallible in their every utterance. We get them on this blog a lot, those who are, by definition, papolatrists – they literally idolise the pope, shutting out their intelligence and reason. I wonder how they feel reading the above; which of the two popes – Pope Francis or Pope Pius XI was being guided by the immutable, unchanging Holy Spirit, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived? Is it possible that the Holy Spirit is speaking unchangeable Truth about religious unity through both of these popes? Or did He, er, change His mind, after Pius XI wrote his encyclical Mortalium Animos? That’s what the logic of papolatry dictates. Isn’t it? Can we help them to know how to explain the above contradictory teachings? Above all, can we help them to understand why it is that, in the matter of religious unity, we must obey, not Pope Francis but Pope Pius XI? Can we? Let’s go to it!
Papal Infallibility only applies when the Pope is making a definite statement on a matter pertaining to faith and morals.
Remember the words of Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Blind obedience is an oxymoron, and no one is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed men rather than God. It is too easy to say, “As for me, I’m obeying. If he’s mistaken, then I’ll be mistaken with him. I prefer to be wrong with the pope than to be right against the pope!” This should be construed as “I prefer to be against our Lord Jesus Christ with the pope than to be with our Lord Jesus Christ against the pope!” Incredible! We are for our Lord Jesus Christ and, consequently, insofar as the pope is truly the Vicar of Christ and acts as the Vicar of Christ and gives us the light of Christ, we are, of course, ready to close our eyes and follow him everywhere. But since this light is no longer that of our Lord Jesus Christ and they are leading us towards new horizons explicitly called new–they do not make a secret of it; everything is new: new code of canon law, new missal…new ecclesiology–that’s no longer any good at all….The resistance must be public if the evil is public and an object of scandal, according to St. Thomas.” ~From the Spiritual Conference at Ecône
“…The Mufti explained things very well to me, with such meekness, and using the Quran, which speaks of Mary and John the Baptist. He explained it all to me….At that moment I felt the need to pray…”
If Pope Francis had asked his Muslim host to explain in addition what the Koran says about the Blessed Trinity and the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, then perhaps he would have felt less inclined to pray and more inclined to head immediately for the exit door of the Mosque. We’ll assume Pope Francis didn’t leave the Mufti thinking that he needed to be baptised anytime soon!
What a high price in souls this ecumenical/inter-religious human respect has cost! What a betrayal of the Commandment of God! An unprecedented inversion of true supernatural charity.
The prophetic religions of the West, the mystical religions of India, and the wisdom religions of China all teach that perfect fulfillment comes when we are united with a transcendent reality after we die. We express this as Catholics by saying Jesus is alive in a new life with God and if we follow Jesus the same good thing can happen to us. This reality is a source of cognitive dissonance in atheists, agnostics, and liberal Christians. Hopefully, Pope Francis has not lost his faith, though I have my own reasons for thinking he has. The Holy Father is just trying to put more emotional and mental stress on atheists and others who think life ends in the grave.
What you say is Catholic teaching I don’t recognise. The statement that “Jesus is alive in a new life with God” isn’t what I understand by Catholic teaching. Jesus IS God. It’s US he’s given the chance for a new life in God, when we turn away from sin, not himself.
According to my Jesuit philosophy professor, Thomas Aquinas said faith in Jesus is primary and doctrines are secondary.
Please take a wee bit of healthy advise and find yourself another philosophy teacher, preferably a non-Jesuit. Faith in Jesus depends utterly on the doctrines He has revealed through His Church. The two cannot be separated and I can assure you that St. Thomas Aquinas did not state otherwise. Your philosophy teacher sounds more like a protestant than a Catholic, and probably is if he’s a Jesuit.
I’ve heard that statement “Jesus is alive in a new life with God” before and I can tell you that it’s a highly suspect statement.
As Laura has already pointed out, Jesus is God.
So we ask ourselves why this ambiguous statement is suddenly doing the rounds in Modernist circles. Well, the simply answer is that the Modernists want everyone to believe that Jesus Christ was just a man, the most perfect man who ever lived, but nevertheless just a man. It’s a clever way of denying the divinity of Our Lord and the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.
It stands to reason that if Our Lord Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, then He has shared the divine life with the Father and the Holy Spirit from all eternity. This was as much the case when He was hanging from the Cross suffering in His sacred humanity to Redeem mankind. He never once lost the beatific vision of the Father and the Holy Spirit during that great bodily suffering and death. So there can be no “new life in God” for Christ, who is God and is the source of all life.
Catholic truth would find heresy in God Himself!!! Papal Encyclicals are NOT and NEVER have been infallible statements. Those who constantly quote from the dead popes society are themselves in error of not following the movement of the Holy Spirit in the church. They are guilty of deliberately misleading the people of God. Whether they admit it or not
Nobody said all encyclicals were infallible. That’s not the issue. The issues is, how can two popes teach totally opposite doctrines and be right? Which of the two popes (Francis or Pius XI) is teaching what the Church has always believed, always and everywhere and which of them is teaching something new? That’s how we know what is the right teaching, not whether it was in an encyclical or not.
I can’t help noticing that you never answer questions, Domchas but would you answer this one. Which of the two popes in the blog article do you think is right about unity?
“I can’t help noticing that you never answer questions, Domchas but would you answer this one. Which of the two popes in the blog article do you think is right about unity?”
Good luck with that one Laura. Domchas’ mode of operation is to make outrageous anti-Catholic statements masquerading as orthodoxy, ad hominum attacks, and swift exits when called upon to expound on the bases of his allegations.
There is one infallible statement that neither you nor your Modernist accomplices can get around and that is “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”. there ends ecumenism, inter-religious initiatives and religious freedom, unless of course you hold opinions contrary to what the Holy Spirit has revealed by the extraordinary Magisterium.
There are many in the Church today following a spirit of sorts, but it’s not the Holy Spirit. St. Paul predicted this when he said: “There will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but according to their own desires will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.”
That’s what happened at Vatican II when the liberal theologians took over the Council and used it as a vehicle for a second Protestant Reformation, this time from within. It’s a great shame that you also follow that deceptive light of Lucifer, imagining the revolution to be a work of the Holy Spirit. If only you could grasp the fact that it’s impossible for the Holy Spirit to contradict Himself. There endeth the lesson!
They say the devil’s favourite colour is grey. In respect of the different teaching of the two Popes, we could say that Pope Pius X1 was black and white, whereas Pope Francis is well, er,,, grey-ish.
Well, “greyish” or whatever, Pope Francis’s lashings of alleged mercy and dollops of inter-faith betrayal, isn’t doing any good in Scotland. Get this for “renewal” – tragic in the extreme. If you can suffer the headline and go on to read the rest of it, let me know. I took one look at the headline and dug out my last remaining diet coke. I’m off to wallow in it, if you get my drift…
I think you’d better add a good dash of Wood’s Navy Rum (57% abv) to that coke…!
Chickens. Home. Roost.
Incidentally, the archbishop’s letter can be found here
That news headline and story you linked says more about the destructive nature of Vatican II reform than any of us here could ever say. Yet, there will still be people arguing that Vatican II reform is a work of the Holy Spirit. Talk about willful blindness! It truly beggars belief!
Brilliant juxtaposition of a sound Catholic mind with . . . a nonbeliever? Reblogging another of yours!
Reblogged this on EX MAGNA SILENTIUM or EX MAGNO SILENTIO and commented:
Another enlightening post from Catholic Truth blog. It speaks for itself. Please read and contemplate the comparison.
Have just paid a visit to your blog, Steve, and left a comment (well, two but the second one is just to correct a typo in the first one!)
I did take the comparisons of the two popes from The Remnant website and just added my wee comment in blue, so it’s thanks, really, to Michael Matt for putting together those few contradictory statements to make a clear table for us of Pope Francis Vs Pope Pius XI. And although I say “few” we should note that there’s plenty more where they came from. The selected quotes are, however, sufficient to make the point. Or, to put it more scripturally, sufficient for the day is the evil quoted thereof!
The “enlightenment” of course will come from our excellent bloggers when they get going on this one. Our usual papolatrists have disappeared of late, happy to say – happy because although they are not pushing our buttons on here with their daft comments, I know they will be reading it and learning.
So, thanks, Michael Matt!
Well, you shared it although I’m sorry I didn’t pick up that it came from The Remnant. Thanks for noting that here and thanks Matt. I am really grateful to know that there are Catholics who really care and I appreciate your blog very much. Thanks for stopping by and clearing the citation up. And let us both keep the Faith in all its fullness!
I goof ed too. Thanks Michael Matt!
I clicked to Follow your blog but the posts are coming fast and furious and I just can’t keep up so have had to delete my subscription. Sorry about that. I will keep an eye though, since your articles are always excellent. And feel free to post links on this blog, any suitable thread and if none appear relevant, there’s always our General Discussion thread.
Whether or not Thomas Aquinas said it, I agree with it. The important decision we have to make is whether Jesus is alive in a new life with God. If we believe this, we will follow Jesus so the same good thing can happen to us. Since Jesus founded the Catholic Church, to be saved we have to believe the doctrines the Church teachers. We need God’s grace to believe in life after death. However, we don’t need God’s grace to believe in the various doctrines that the Church teaches. In other words, faith in Jesus is primary and believing the doctrines the Church teaches is secondary.
It is elementary that we cannot separate Christ from His Church: He actually SAID “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life” – I am Doctrine, in other words. If you go through Catholic doctrines one by one, David, you will see that it is, frankly and with respect, ridiculous to say that what Jesus revealed about Himself is secondary to er… Himself.
Doesn’t make any sense at all.
“Jesus is in a new life with God”. What exactly does that modernist statement mean, if not that Jesus is not actually God Himself? Think about it!
By the way, faith is a supernatural virtue given to us by God. We do not possess that virtue if we separate Jesus from His doctrine – “If you love me, you will keep my Commandments”. And again – who hears you, hears me”. This is all very basic stuff.
If you argue that faith in Jesus does not require absolute acceptance of His doctrine (the doctrine of the Church), then you are with the greatest respect a Protestant. Protestants have been saying exactly what you’ve said for 450 years since the Reformation. That’s not the Catholic Faith, David.
The act of faith is the belief that our freedom is before God and when we die our past is somehow gathered up and this becomes the defining moment of our life. We are not guaranteed salvation, but we can hope for it with “fear and trembling.” To be saved, you have to believe and profess the Apostle’s creed. I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But my guess is that your understanding of the Trinity is different from mine. How can belief in the Trinity be as important as believing in Jesus? Ninety percent of PhDs in biology in the US think life ends in the grave. This is the world we live in. I don’t care whether someone is a Protestant, Hindu, or Moslem.
David R much as I hate to even be seen to be agreeing with anything on this blog I must correct You, in charity. Our salvation IS gaurenteed through the death AND resurrection Of Jesus Christ. Whether we as individuals choose to accept that guarentee is a matter of faith in Christ. I agree that faith in Jesus Christ as’Lord and Saviour’ through the action of the Holy Spirit is more important than the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. However these doctrines, whilst secondary to belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour are there to provide support to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. Belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour as the the first and foremost vehicle of our ‘gaurentee of salvation’. This actually brings a huge of freedom to those in the Roman Catholic Church who are able to help build the kingdom for the sake of Christ, despite the human institution and all its flaws, Jesus is the central focus of salvation and many are called to remain within the institution despite the very many difficulties that involves in living for the kingdom.
If it’s any consolation to you, your correction of Concerned Catholic’s error was also erroneous, so no need to repent of having agreed with us Catholics on the blog.
It is a Protestant heresy to preach salvation by faith alone, which is essentially what both of you are saying with your “doctrine is secondary” argument.
The doctrines of the Catholic Church are also called “the deposit of Faith.” These are divinely revealed truths that have come from God Himself and are absolutely essential for salvation. There is no separating Christ from His doctrine, just as there is no separating God from His Commandments, which also represent divine doctrine.
And just in case either of you disagrees, here are some condemned and proscribed propositions from the Syllabi of Popes Pius IX & X, which carry full Magisterial authority.
Condemned Proposition #1
“The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths that have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.”
Condemned Proposition #2
“The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as perceptive norms of conduct not as norms of believing.”
Condemned Proposition #3
“Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.”
Condemned Proposition #4
“Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.”
Condemned Proposition #5
“Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.”
Condemned Proposition #6
“The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, Liberalism and modern civilization”
I threw that last one in to demonstrate the Traditional Magisterial condemnation of the stated purpose of Vatican II and its so-called “pastoral reform programme,” a programme to “embrace the modern world”. It’s a great pity that many Catholics are only now seeing the prophetic wisdom of the pre-Council Popes as the Church falls ever deeper into crisis.
Athanasius, once again your infallible , longwinded quotes from the dead popes society is the only offering you have to give. Do you never accept that You, yes you Athanasius might be very wrong! Do you actually ever have an original thought in your head? You really are very blinded by what you think is the absolute truth as you see it. I realise that in your misguided belief that you alone have the answers you are very sincere, but sadly that sincerity actually impedes your progress in the Spiritual life it is such a pity you are unable to move forward! The ONLY absolute truth is Jesus Christ not the dead popes society of which you are so fondof quoting! God bless you!
Your ignorance is beyond belief. That’s not a pejorative use of the term, it’s a fact. “Ignorance” as in you “don’t know”. Or – more accurately – you “really don’t know”. I mean, really, really, REALLY don’t know.
Firstly, NOBODY has an original thought – read up on what St Therese said on the subject. That’s number one gaffe in your latest contribution to causing confusion for the visitors to this blog.
Secondly, I note you have made your own, the insulting description “dead popes society” to refer to Catholic Tradition, a description used on this blog often by a Protestant contributor of the Anglican schism from time to time. Shame on you.
Thirdly, if anyone is blinded, it’s you. Big time. I mean, a Specsavers’ visit long overdue. If only they could get into the market for curing spiritual blindness, they’d make a fortune from you, alone.
Fourthly, Athanasius has never claimed that HE has the answers. The answers lie in Catholic Tradition, what you, along with your Protestant pal, term the “dead popes society”.
Finally, since you use the jargon about “moving forward” you need to spell that out. Do you mean replace all of the definitions and infallible statements from “the dead popes society” (Catholic Tradition) with the careless utterances of a Pope who can’t resist the sight of a microphone?
Your concluding remark, separating Christ from Catholic Tradition – i.e. the Catholic Church, confirms that you have lost the Catholic Faith if ever you had it.
So, don’t let’s keep you. I think they’re looking for bloggers over at The Tablet – more your scene, I’d have thought.
Editor… God Bless.
Ed: the rest of this nasty post – in between salutation and laughable (in the context of the nasty text of the message) signature – has been deleted. Look, we’re really not interested in your rants, Domchas, nor in anybody else’s who isn’t even able to get the name of the Church right, choosing instead to – quite deliberately, after correction more than once, use the Protestant name for the Catholic Church. The fact, too, that you persistently misinterpret a bit of humour with nasty sarcasm ( I mean, would I? Moi?) means that you are about as Catholic as Pope Francis’s Mufti pal.
The above, coupled with your ignorance about the nature and purpose of both the Church itself and the papacy, which has been corrected on here often enough convinces me that you are wilfully blind. You thought you knew it all when you first appeared and lack the humility to say “I was wrong. Thanks for the fraternal correction” as other humble souls have done. I suspect your early posts, in which you supported those living the “gay” lifestyle, hold the clue. Spiritual blindness, Domchas, comes with persistent grave and un-repented sin. If I’m wrong, you will begin to write like a real Catholic. Until then, Sugar Plum, we can’t help you. Sorry about that. It’s unfortunate. Wish it had worked out differently. Still, what we had was OK while it lasted, wasn’t it? Goodbye, Honey Bunch. 🙂
I can’t add a single word to your very concise response to the hapless Domchas. What I will say though is that even The Tablet might struggle with this poor soul, and that’s saying something!
If you don’t care whether someone is Protestant, Hindu or Muslim, then you don’t have the virtue of divine charity, which gives us the desire to want all souls to convert to the true Catholic and Apostolic Faith for salvation. There’s no nice way to put this, but it’s sounding increasing like you really don’t have the fullness of the Catholic Faith.
As for the rest of your comment, I’m afraid it is likewise foreign to Traditional Catholic teaching. In fact, it is frighteningly reminiscent of Protestantism which is a kind of feel-good, do-it-yourself religion that won’t get you to heaven.
Whoever schooled you in the Catholic Faith failed very miserably. I urge you to get hold of a Traditional Catholic Catechism as soon as possible and study it carefully. I would also advise a read through some of the pre-Vatican II Papal Encyclicals (available online), such as Quanta Cura, Mirari Vos, Humanum Genus, Libertas Praestantissimum, Lamentabili Sane, Mortalium Animos, Quas Primas, Humani Generis & the Syllabus of Error of Blessed Pope Pius IX.
Whereas you may take issue with me, you certainly will not be able to take issue with the sound teaching contained in these Papal documents, unless of course you really do think your opinion is superior to the Magisterial Teaching of the Church, which speaks with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hindus have meaningful lives. Converting them may or may not help them get to Heaven, but it will certainly increase Church revenues. When you convert an atheist, agnostic, or liberal Christian, you are giving them a meaningful life. You are helping them. Also, there is a lot to tell atheists because they are ignorant, stupid, irrational, and dishonest. I can’t think of anything I would want to tell a Protestant.
Good God, David! Are you sure you were raised a Catholic? I don’t know where to begin with that diatribe. I’ve spoken with pagans who are more Catholic than you in their beliefs. You really need to get to grips with these very serious errors you hold. Believe me, they’re not remotely Catholic.
The quote, as given, doesn’t say what The Mufti explained, and so there is no reason at all to assume he said something with which any Catholic could disagree. It is, therefore, nonsense to use the quote to suggest The Pope is acting in any un-Catholic way.
Clearly, Muslims do not see Jesus Christ as Christians do, and many of their stories about Mary, and The Saints, have no foundation in Christian Tradition. However, they do honour Jesus, Mary, and some of The Saints, and more especially those they regard as prophets.
Much of their moral, and ethical teaching, echoes that is taught by Christians and Jews.
Ecumenism, and inter-faith, dialogue are a work of The Holy Spirit. We must approach such dialogue with confidence as we believe that there is only One Lord, and Saviour of the World, Jesus Christ.
If you study the origin of Islam, you will find that the Prophet melded the beliefs of the Christians and the Jews to come up with his own religion. That is why there is any mention of the Our Lady and the Saints.
Considering Islam is the religion flooding the Catholic Church with martyrs, having subjected them to the most hideous tortures and degradations, for the Pope to be sharing sentimental moments with the leaders of that religion is betrayal, most un-Catholic and unbelievably callous. Where is his loyalty? It certainly does not lie with his suffering sheep. Oh yes, he can put on a clown nose and entertain the guests at a wedding ceremony, but what is he doing for his flock being decimated? Praying in the temple of their persecutors? Is he offering the pinch of incense for them when they refused to do it themselves? Is the good Pope perhaps telling his flock that they really don’t need to suffer and die, they can embrace the Jesus the Muslims honor and all can live happily ever after?
And have Christians ever killed Muslims ever?
“And have Christians ever killed Muslims ever?”
You could not be trying to justify the slaughter of unarmed civilians, whose only crime is to be Christian, by ISIS, are you?
How low are you willing to stoop to defend the unthinking, and callous attitude of the Pope toward his own flock? Low enough to say this bloodbath can be justified on any count?
Clearly, I wasn’t writing of any conflict in modern times. No right minded person, following this discussion, would suggest I did.
If you are referring to the Crusades, don’t fall for the lies. There is plenty of propaganda out there. This link might help you to get to the truth of the matter
The Pope acted in an un-Catholic way the minute he set foot in a Mosque. Or do you deny the infallible dogma “Outside the Church no salvation”?
“Clearly, Muslims do not see Jesus Christ as Christians do, and many of their stories about Mary, and The Saints, have no foundation in Christian Tradition. However, they do honour Jesus, Mary, and some of The Saints, and more especially those they regard as prophets.”
They dishonour Our Lady and the saints when they deny what the Catholic Church teaches about them. The Pope should be explaining that to them!
“Much of their moral, and ethical teaching, echoes that is taught by Christians and Jews.”
That’s because Islam is a man-made religion of the 8th century that incorporated bits of both, together with other things, to form the basis of its doctrine.
“Ecumenism, and inter-faith, dialogue are a work of The Holy Spirit.”
No, they are the work of the Masonic spirit which is the spirit of Lucifer. The false doctrines of ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue originate in the lodges of Freemasonry. That’s why so many Popes before Vatican II formally condemned and proscribed these errors as “deadly to the true Catholic religion”. And that’s why Vatican II could not impose them with authority on the Catholic faithful and has never been able to defend them with pre-Vatican II teaching. You need to open your eyes!
If I visit a building used by other faiths I am not denying my own faith, and the same would, clearly, be true of The Pope.
The Pope prayed in that place of false worship standing beside a Mufti on equal terms. He wasn’t there as a tourist.
I take it you don’t find it remotely confusing that the Vatican II Popes have regarded the world’s false religions in a way that was unthinkable to all their predecessors right back to St. Peter, in a way in fact that actually contradicts what these predecessors said concerning false religions?
I’ll also assume that you don’t see any incompatibility between the First Commandment and these Conciliar Papal actions, or indeed recognise in them at least an implicit denial of the infallible Catholic dogma ‘outside the Church no salvation”? That’s worrying!
I think we can all pray anywhere. It is not the building above our head that matters, but the fact that God is above us.
May I remind you every Pope since The Council, and The Universal Church, upholds that The Council is part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church.
In rejecting The Council you undermine every one of your own words, and scholars who serve on various Pontifical bodies have directly challenged your world view.
You had the audacity to pass judgement on another commentator and told him he needed to confess. Who on earth are you listening to?
Sadly, you’re wrong about Vatican II. That Council, unlike any other in the history of the Church, was non-doctrinal and therefore non-binding, at least in its novelties. Pope John XXIII himself said at the outset that Vatican II was a mere Pastoral Council which was not going to touch on doctrine. So this false idea that Vatican II is binding on the faithful in the way the dogmatic Councils of the past were is utter nonsense and unsustainable in light of the teaching of the Conciliar Popes themselves.
As for telling that other blogger that he should go to confession. I did this when it became evident that he had no trouble whatsoever with Catholics breaching the moral law of the Church in respect to marrying a divorcee. If for no other reason, someone had to tell him that the very suggestion is mortally sinful and must be confessed.
At any rate, it was apparent from his comments about conscience that he had some kind of issue going on in his own that he needed to address. Bishop Fulton Sheen often spoke this way to Catholics who blamed the Church and idolised personal conscience in a attempt to justify a lifestyle that was incompatible with both. My advice to that blogger was along the same charitable lines. I want him to save his soul so I gave him some brotherly advice. The best thing he can do in his confusion is to speak with a sound Father Confessor.
There’s actually an article by a priest in this week’s Catholic Herald saying that Pope Francis is teaching priests to correct people directly and publicly – this is by way of excusing the Pope’s ticking off to the mother of seven, expecting her eighth child. Fr Raymond De Souza says Pope Francis is imitating Jesus calling the scribes and Pharisees whited sepulchres etc.
Equality didn’t come to it.
The Pope was a guest, and showed respect for his host.
Christian charity in action. Can a Catholic really be so perverse to condemn respect for others, and what they value?
It seems like me and Domchas are in agreement: Faith in Jesus is more important than doctrine. Doctrine developed over the years after the Resurrection and Catholics have different ideas about what the doctrine is. But, there is no disagreement about the Resurrection.
What about the Ten Commandments?.
Moral laws are secondary principles. The primary principle is that we are responsible for our actions and should follow our conscience.
But one’s conscience needs to be formed- if not on the Ten Commandments and the teaching of the Church, then on what?
To eradicate the moral law of God in favour of your personal conscience is the equivalent of declaring yourself to be God. I don’t know what makes you believe that the divine moral law is of secondary importance. Did not Our Lord Jesus Christ say “if you love me you will keep my Commandments”?
So, the true test of our claim to know and love Christ lies in the keeping of His Commandments, not in following our own lights. Here’s another statement of Our Lord for you to ponder: “Not all those who say Lord! Lord! shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven. But those who do the will of my Father in heaven; they shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven.” And what is the first principle of doing the will of the Father? It is keeping His Commandments.
You should violate a moral law when circumstances require it. Our conscience is the inner voice inside us that tells us whether or not to follow a moral law.
Garbage! Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s what your excuse amounts to.
Conscience must be properly formed by the moral law revealed by God and taught by the Catholic Church. There is no such thing as a personally formed conscience apart from this divine law. Therefore, those who argue that they act contrary to the moral law in accordance with conscience are just liars trying to convince themselves and everyone else that evil is good.
That inner voice you speak of is the voice of conscience, which is formed by the Commandments of God “written in every heart.” It is quite impossible, therefore, for one to violate the moral law in the name of conscience. It is not impossible, however, for a person to so deaden his conscience to God’s Laws that the inner voice he becomes accustomed to hearing is either the voice of his own evil inclinations or the voice of Satan himself. We have to be very particular about keeping our conscience clean by the laws and grace of God.
Lying is a sin and this principle helps me when I am deciding whether or not to tell the truth. We are responsible for our actions. We can’t justify our actions by citing moral laws. Suppose, for example, you fall in love with someone who just wants to live with you without the benefit of marriage?
“Suppose, for example, you fall in love with someone who just wants to live with you without the benefit of marriage?”
If you believe in Christ, and in the Church that He founded, you would refuse to do so (or at least know that you were doing wrong by submitting to such a demand). Don’t you agree?
Therese, Did you ever hear of the sin of being overly scrupulous? Suppose you are planning an evening watching TV with your parents. You get invited to a party where there will be flirting and drinking. Your chances of committing a sin if you stay home is zero percent. If you go to the party it jumps to 50 percent. Is it a sin to go to the party? I say no because God wants us to live our lives.
Yes, I’ve heard of being overly scrupulous – believe me, it doesn’t apply to me.
Of course it isn’t a sin to go to a party! One is open to the temptations of life in most circumstances of daily life, wherever one works. Being tempted to sin is – unfortunately – a part of being human. But we have to know how to recognise when something IS a sin, and we can do this only by understanding and following the example of Our Saviour which He has set down for us, both while he was present on earth and subsequently through His Holy Church.
Of course God wants us to live our lives; He also wants us to live with Him forever in Heaven, and we won’t do that by pleasing ourselves and following our own pleasures on this earth. Do you want to have what passes for heaven in this life, or the real deal in the next?
It isn’t rocket science David. You seem to be most sincere in your strange beliefs, but they aren’t Catholic. I would urge you to seek authentic instruction in the Faith.
Therese: If you were an alcoholic and a sex addict, it would be a sin to go the party. You get to heaven by following your conscience in the light of the circumstances. If your conscience dwells to much on the letter of the moral laws, your conscience may be leading you to sin. You can’t justify going to a party by saying, “It is not a sin.” Likewise, you can’t justify turning down a marriage proposal by saying, “It is a sin to marry a married man.”
Yes, it would be a sin to go to that party because of the dangerous occasion of sin it represents. God wants us to enjoy life innocently, not presumptuously. You would never have caught any of the saints hanging out at a place where there was even a 1% chance of them offending God by sin; that’s why they are now saints.
If sin doesn’t disgust you, especially mortal sin, then there’s something seriously wrong with your spiritual life.
Athanasius: Sin does not disgust me. St. Teresa of Lisieux would confess things like being distracted in prayer. Her confessors kept telling her it wasn’t a sin, but she knew it was. She was very happy to find a confessor who agreed with her. We are supposed to act towards the good. But there is only one path towards the good, and we can never determine exactly where it is. Every thing we do misses the target, so everything we do is a sin.
And how did the alcoholic and sex addict fall into his miserable state? By attending sinful party’s he thought would do him no harm.
If you play with fire you can expect to get burnt, David. It doesn’t take an Einstein to work that basic principle out.
Your arguments on conscience just don’t hold water, David. You’re in error and you need to recognise the fact.
“Likewise, you can’t justify turning down a marriage proposal by saying, “It is a sin to marry a married man.”
That’s an astonishing thing for a Catholic to say. How can it not be a sin to marry a married man? That’s someone else’s husband – you need to rewind to where you were saying it’s a sin for someone who is tempted in a particular sin (alcohol or whatever) to go to a party. So, if you are attracted to someone who is already married you have to avoid that person, just like the party. We are supposed to avoid dangerous occasions of sin, of all kinds.
Your comments of 12:45am don’t make any sense at all. I’m sorry but you’re jumping from one thing to another and it’s utterly confusing. Your arguments are irrational and unsustainable.
“Suppose, for example, you fall in love with someone who just wants to live with you without the benefit of marriage?”
Then it is not true love, since it is in opposition to God’s law and is therefore immoral. Such arrangements as you describe, and they are very common today, negate true love. They are self-serving non-committal unions that are purely physical and emotional in nature.
The supernatural Sacrament of marriage alone makes the union between a man and a woman a union of true love. Anything else is just a union of lust and convenience which is superficial and doomed to failure.
How else can I put this? Think of marriage as self-giving and cohabiting as self-indulging.
“It seems like me and Domchas are in agreement:”
Exactly, although to do him justice, many of Domchas’ statements are intelligible, even though erroneous, whereas many of yours aren’t.
“… there is no disagreement about the Resurrection.” There is also no disagreement about “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”. Christ left the Vicar of Christ to guide His flock to Heaven, thus we have rules, regulations, doctrine. What does having faith in Jesus mean if it doesn’t mean following what He founded?
Where, in Holy Scripture or Sacred Tradition, does it say that Faith Alone is “primary”. Here’s a clue – nowhere!
You sound more like an heir of Luther with your “Sola Fides” heresy. Our Lord makes it clear that He cannot be separated from the Church when He instructed His Apostles:
” He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.”
St. Timothy tells us that the Church, the Deposit of Faith, is the pillar of Truth.
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
Now I’ve heard some crazy things on this blog from our Modernist regulars eileenanne, Common Sense, Domchas etc They are Modernists but they are our Modernists! However this is the first time we’ve had outright heresy.
Since you clearly missed this further back in the thread, I thought I should post it again.
The statement below has been formally condemned and proscribed by Blessed Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of errors:
“Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.”
This condemned proposition puts to bed once and for all your error that doctrine is either secondary to faith or that it evolved. I hope to see you recant this error now that you are familiar with infallible Magisterial teaching in the matter. That’s what any true Catholic would do, publicly.
Athanasius: Jesus taught that our purpose in life is to serve God in this world to be with him in the next. I don’t consider this doctrine. My idea of doctrine in the Trinity. As I said, I am sure you and me have different understandings of the Trinity. We disagree about doctrine, but we both believe what Jesus taught. What Jesus taught is “applicable to all times and all men” as Pius IX said.
Again, your comment is irrational and confusing.
First you say we have different understandings of the Trinity, which can only mean that one of us is Catholic and the other is not, and I know that I am Catholic in this regard.
Then you say we disagree about doctrine and yet insist that we both believe what Jesus taught, which is clearly contradictory.
And finally, you quote in favour of Pius IX’s admonition that the doctrine of Our Lord is “applicable to all times and all men,” yet have argued from the outset that Catholic doctrine is secondary to belief in Jesus and in fact post-dates Him.
Given that you have ignored all the Magisterial evidence I have put before you on this thread, and given that you have likewise ignored the sound Catholic teaching expressed by others, it seems to me that this matter is never going to be resolved and that you really ought to move on from here and speak with a sound Catholic priest, that is if you really want to know and hold the truths of the Catholic Faith without which you cannot save your soul.
Athanasius, Another solution would be to assign a moderator to our discussion.
It sounds to me like you’re more in need of a confessor than a moderator. I urge you to face your troubled conscience head on and take that step to the confessional.
My father (+ R.I.P.) was a man of great wisdom, even though he spent most of his working life in a boiler suit. I often heard him say this about Jesus Christ ….’either He is Who He says He is, or he’s the biggest impostor of all time’…
Now, if He is Who He Says He is i.e. the Only Son of God and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, it stands to reason that the only VALID religion is the one He Himself founded. In other words, all man-made ‘religions’ are IN-valid, regardless of how many followers they may have.
How often we hear this rubbish talked about Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam etc. all being….’parallel paths to heaven’…. that it….’doesn’t really matter which religion you follow’ …because….’one is as good as’ or ‘equivalent to’ any other…. After all, …’we all worship the same God’…and….’there is more to unite us than divide us’…. Alas, successive popes haven’t done much to dispel any of these heresies (a nice way of saying they have betrayed their office, as well as their Maker).
In Christianity, God comprises the Holy Trinity of Father (our Creator), Son (our Redeemer) and Holy Spirit, Who blesses and sanctifies us. Any so-called ‘religion’ that advocates belief in God as Creator of the Universe, but doesn’t recognise the Son and Holy Spirit, only has one-third of the true picture. As for our ‘separated brethren’, the ‘heinz’ churches (57 varieties) of Methodists, Baptists or whatever else they call themselves, I should think the current schism within the Catholic Church hasn’t escaped their attention. For all the interminable blether about ‘Christian Unity’, this surely makes it an ever more distant pipe-dream.
Well said. Well – ABSOLUTELY – said. Your father, RIP, was spot on. Either Christ is who He said He was – God – or He’s “the biggest imposter of all time.”
The sheer insult to place Him on the same level as man-made gods and alleged prophets, is outrageous.
The Islamic ‘take’ on Jesus, as I understand things, is that He….’was a holy man and a prophet, but not the only Son of God, because God (or Allah, as you prefer) has many sons’…..
Where is the logic in this? If Our Lord is not Who He claims to be, that makes Him a liar. How can a liar be a ‘holy man’? Answers, on a postcard please….
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”
If one pope is contradicting another, either one must be right and one must be wrong, or they both must be wrong. If Pius XI was wrong in his assessment of inter-religious dialogue, then there is no reason to think Francis might be right. They both apparently had the same authority, so if the Church of today teaches something different from what it taught less than a century ago, then it cannot be the true religion.
The point you make is a valid one. To answer the conundrum, it suffices to say that Pius X, like all of his predecessors, taught with Magisterial authority in this matter. If you look at Vatican II’s documents and reflect on the words and actions of the Popes since the Council, you will quickly see that they propose their novel doctrines to the faithful, they do not impose them. That’s how we know that Our Lord has been faithful to His promise regarding the Church and the integrity of the deposit of faith.
There has never been, nor will there be, a formal, authoritative document or Papal statement binding the Catholic faithful to the New Mass, ecumenism, religious freedom, or any of those other catastrophic changes that have decimated the Catholic Church since Vatican II. The Magisterial teaching that stood for almost 2000 years up to the commencement of that fateful Council still stands today as the true Catholic teaching, despite all the false arguments of those who try to persuade us that it has been replaced with a new Magisterial authority.
They were both addressing different problems, and a different mind-set, in a different age and culture. Simple really.
It’s a great error to think that Magisterial Church teaching evolves to meet different times and circumstances. I think that error is condemned above in one of the proscribed propositions from Blessed Pius IX’s Syllabus.
Mind-set, age and culture do not alter divine truth, so I’m afraid you’re on a loser with that excuse.
Take for example, a person who says “its all the same God”, and have a relativistic approach to religious matters, and some appeared to take that position of some in the past, that I think is the attitude previously condemned. However, modern ecumenism, and inter-faith dialogue, does not take that approach – look at the ARCIC Documents for example – that is not condemned. The teaching, as such, has not altered. What was “condemned” remains wrong, but what now takes place is not what takes place. We are addressing a different time and culture, and a discussion based on constant truths, and real dialogue.
The approach of The Catholic Church on Scripture Scholarship, for example, once led to denouncement by some, but today that scholarship is commended and recommended. The warnings about difficulties still exist. However, the assessment of what is actually happening, and what is permissible, has changed in the light of The Church growing in understanding of how to apply eternal truths in a new epoch.
Many with the authentic Magisterium, and their advisers, would question the scholarship, and views, you promote as orthodox, including, by your own admission on this very blog, a scholar appointed by The Pope to serve on a Pontifical Council.
As I have said before, if you agree with a particular Pope, or scholar, you quote them, even on the topic of private revelations, but with one broad sweep you condemn those who listen to successive holders of the Papal Office, and the most recent, and totally authoritative, Council as people guilty of Papalotry.
You have claimed that the early Church had Latin as the Official Language, and yet it wrote what became part of the Canon of Holy Scripture, in languages than Latin. You have also said, St Justin, a second Century martyr, used Protestant terminology to describe The Holy Mass, when he spoke of it as a meal, and The Eucharist.
I am quite happy with what more renowned, and learned scholars, and The Magisterium teach. Thank You.
Good try, but not remotely convincing. I have laid out for you the Magisterial teaching and you have responded with your personal opinion. That, I’m afraid, cuts no ice here.
We on this blog follow the Traditional Magisterial teaching of the Church and back up our arguments with evidence from that teaching. If you take issue with what we uphold, then make a contrary case with supportive documented evidence.
We’re not interested here in personal views and propositions, which result in endless and useless debates. Stick to Magisterial teaching with supportive evidence and we can all have a most charitable and fruitful exchange to our mutual benefit. Any other kind of polemic is unwelcome.
I haven’t expressed a personal opinion. I have said a Second Century Martyr brings into question your scholarship, and scatter gun approach to the accusation of Protestantism and error, and said that one Council, two saints, one blessed, and more than one Venerable, – who each held Papal Office – in recent decades, say you, not I, are wrongin your assessment of what is Truth. And even the most ignorant, anti-Catholic, would counsel against using a Catholic Encyclopaedia as a Primary Source in discussing these issues. Any casual reader of your views would do well to listen to The Magisterium, and its Councils.
Official documented evidence please to prove your claim that St. Justin called the Mass a meal.
I would need to read that statement from a recognised and trusted source in order to first prove it to be true and then find out the proper context in which the word was used.
It is term “Eucharist” which you condemned as Protestant, and you can google St Justin for yourself on that, as can any reader looking for the truth, rather than a personal opinion on what is Catholic and what is Protestant. You believe Justin was tainted by Protestantism!
From the outset, the terminology used has been on eating and drinking i.e that which people do at a meal.
In scripture, and ancient, Church documents the Church speaks of the Eucharistic Banquet. and banquet is a synonym for meal. You would have to be a real pedant, and divorced from The Church, to object to the use of a valid synonym.
However, the more important point is that you not The Church, and St Justin, say the term Eucharist is a Protestant imposition on the modern Church some 18 Centuries after Justin!
I should have corrected a lie you wrote. It was you, not I, who claimed that St. Justin used Protestant terminology. I’m not aware that the Martyr ever spoke of the Mass as a meal. You said it, not me.
By the way, I would be very interested to see documented evidence to that effect, and I mean sound documented evidence. Please provided it at your earliest opportunity.
One more thing. Though there are some few words of other languages in the Mass, a few Greek, a few Hebrew, the majority of the Mass is written in Latin and has been since the very earliest centuries of the Church. Or perhaps you’ve forgotten that St. Peter went to Rome in the first century AD?
It’s quite interesting to note that the “Cause” which hung above Our Lord on the Cross, reading: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” was written in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, the three languages that are represented in the ancient Mass of the Church. That, for me, is a very strong indicator of the work of the Holy Spirit in expressing the reality of the Sacrifice of Calvary in the ancient liturgy.
So why, we ask, did Fr. Bugnini suppress that ancient Mass in favour of the Reformation vernacular model of the heretic Martin Luther, who is known to have exclaimed: “destroy the Mass and you will destroy the Catholic Church”. Old Luther knew what he was talking about, as should be evident to all after 45 years of the New Mass and the present crisis in the Church!!
The essence of God is Immutability. It follows that doctrine and dogma which comes from God must necessarily be immutable. Trying to separate them is like trying to separate the doctrine of the Trinity, Sorry, can’t be done. God and dogma are one, just as Three Divine Persons form one God.
The Syllabus of Errors contains 80 articles, yet a previous post only mentions 6 of these. What about the others?
You’re always perplexed about something, usually something you needn’t or shouldn’t be perplexed about. Never heard of Google? Here’s what I found when I Googled Syllabus or Errors – would you BELIEVE it? 😯
My question is…are they all binding?
Why would you doubt that they are all binding?
Yes they are all binding. I remember this being posted before on this blog and the Catholic Encyclopaedia online was very clear about the propositions being binding. I have quoted it a few times.
Personally, I would say the Syllabus addressed an entirely different situation, – in terms of time, culture, and appreciation of the issues involved, and the approach that rightly should be taken – and so in that sense they cannot be binding, and the same document wouldn’t be written or endorsed today.
The Second Vatican Council addressed most of this issues, and it came to a different viewpoint, and The Pope(s) and the wider Magisterium, including Pope Benedict or was one of the most “conservative” and “traditional” in recent times, endorse the Council as part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church, and binding on the whole Church. (All holders of the Papal Office uphold Tradition and Holy Scripture, but in other respects some are more traditional.)
Successive Pope(s) have engaged in inter-faith, and ecumenical dialogue, – on a minor scale welcoming successive Archbishops of Canterbury, and even praying in Canterbury Cathedral – and on a bigger scale hosting inter-faith gatherings in Assisi, and in The Vatican Gardens, and in practically every country visited by successive Popes. But never, ever, praying with non Christians.
Documents published by, and since, the Council stress the importance of inter-faith, and ecumenical, dialogue and speak, in a new way, of an hierarchy of truths, and how, people of all faiths, can in and through Christ, attain salvation by living good lives, and informing their consciences through the light of reason, and what light they “see”. However, if and when, they get to heaven they, like anyone, else will do so through the gift, and self offering, of Jesus Christ.
Since “Perplexed” has ignored my question ( 😀 surprise 😀 ) and since Laura mentions but doesn’t quote the Catholic encyclopaedia, here is the relevant passage(s) about the binding nature of the Syllabus:
Many theses of the Syllabus of Pius X, as all Catholic theologians affirm, are heresies, i.e. infallibly false; for their contradictory is dogma, in many cases even fundamental dogma or an article of faith in the Catholic Church. With regard to the question, whether the Syllabus is in itself an infallible dogmatic decision, theologians hold opposite opinions. Some maintain that the Decree is infallible on account of its confirmation (4 July, 1907) or sanction (18 November, 1907) by the pope; others defend the opinion that the Decree remains nevertheless the doctrinal decision of a Roman Congregation, and is, viewed precisely as such, not absolutely immune from error. In this theological dispute, therefore, liberty of opinion, which has always been safeguarded by the Church in undecided questions, still remains to us. Yet all theologians agree that no Catholic is allowed to maintain any of the condemned theses. For in the decrees of a Roman Congregation we not only have the verdict of a scientific commission, which gives its decisions only after close investigation, but also the pronouncement of a legitimate religious authority competent to bind the whole Church in questions within its competence (cf. what has been said above regarding the Syllabus of Pius IX; under I. B.).
Emphasis added – Ed.
The Syllabus of Pius X may be taken as an introduction to the Encyclical “Pascendi”, which gives a more systematic exposition of the same subject. It may be, therefore, that later generations will not find it necessary to distinguish between the importance of the Syllabus and that of the Encyclical. Nevertheless, the Syllabus was published at the most opportune moment. The Catholics of those countries in which Modernism had worked its ill effects felt relieved. By this Decree the tenets of religious evolutionism were laid before them in short theses and condemned. Up to that time the significance and the bearing of isolated Modernist views, appearing now here, now there, had not always been fully grasped. Now, however, everyone of good will had to recognize that the Modernists, under the plea of assimilation to modern ideas of development, had tried to destroy the foundations of all natural and supernatural knowledge. Moreover, to the whole Catholic world the Decree sounded a note of warning from the supreme pastor and drew attention to the excellent principles of scholastic theology and to the growing importance of a thorough schooling in exegetical criticism and in the history of dogma, which the Modernists had abused in the most unpardonable manner. Source – Catholic Encyclopaedia
How many times to I have to re-state this: Vatican II was not a binding doctrinal Council of the Church, it was purely pastoral in nature. The Syllabus, as editor has pointed out with a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, was/is binding on the faithful.
Now you know that you are not a Catholic if you take issue with binding Magisterial teaching. So, I assume you will now come into line with what the Syllabus teaches?
Please tel me which a since, open, honest, faithful Catholic should consider binding: A “Catholic” Encyclopaedia, or a Conciliar Council, The Magisterium, and successive holders of the Papal Office which includes at least two Saints, one Blessed, and at least one Venerable?
An Encyclopaedia, and self selected authors, and clerics, or The Pope(s), A Council and the wider Magisterium in communion with The See of Peter?
I know which a loyal, Traditional, faithful Catholic, would properly assent to.
Really? Why, then, did St Vincent of Lerins foresee such a time when the Church would be plunged into crisis and confusion? Why did he exhort faithful Catholics to cling to Tradition? Take a look at his words:
“What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.
“But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.
“What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.
“But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.”
When modern popes teach something that differs from his predecessors we cling to Tradition. Go along with the modern lie that everything is rosy if you wish, but you are nothing more than a “useful idiot”. The truth is that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
I think it is for The Magisterium, and The Universal Church, to decide how any teaching by a Saint be applied, and its is to Peter that |Jesus gave The Keys, and all the power that entails, to lead and guide The Church, and not to individuals or proffer opinions on such things regardless of consistent Papal and Conciliar teachings.
Another commentator here has pointed out people like St Vincent, and St Thomas Aquinas, were offering an analysis, and response, to the issues pertaining in The Church of their own time, and not mapping the whole future of The Church.
Many other authoritative sources, more knowledgeable than me, including Popes, and modern day Saints, and gifted theologians, and Church Councils, and Synods, would counsel you against your blinkered approach to historical figures, and the needs of the current Church.
You have twisted and contorted everything I wrote above and completely ignored the evidence that devastates your schismatic mindset.
What’s the point of debating further with you? You’re not interested in the truth and the facts from Church teaching and I’m a busy man.
In an interview broadcast on French TV today, Cardinal Burke has made clear that he will resist the Pope in the matter of giving Holy Communion to adulterers. Click here…
Note, there is a link to the actual TV interview at the end of the SSPX report.
NOTE: I’d forgotten that we have a thread running on Cardinal Burke (re. the synod/money motive) so I’m going to re-post this over there.)
This is just as much a problem for you as it is for us. If you can ignore the teachings of Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul I, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John XXIII(all of whom were very ecumenical and supported religious dialogue), then we can ignore the teachings of Pope Pius XI.
Wrong. You are failing to understand Catholic teaching on the deposit of Faith which cannot change and the role and duty of popes to preserve that. They are not authorised to change it. And at times of crisis in the Church, like the present time, that’s how we know who is right and who is wrong. Pope are not infallible in their every utterance.
Pope Pius XI upheld the constant teaching of the Church from the beginning, when he forbade Catholics to participate in ecumenical and inter-faith events. The Popes YOU name, departed from that constant Catholic teaching. That’s how an educated (in the Faith) Catholic knows which pope is right and which popes are wrong.
And just to underline this truth, and not to leave us wallowing in doubt, God sent Our Lady to earth to forewarn of this crisis, firstly in the 17th century, at Quito, Ecuador, and then in the 20th century at Fatima, Portugal. Cardinal Ciappi, who was close to all of the popes you mention (chaplain to five, I think I’m correct in saying) said of the Fatima prophecy – the last part, suppressed by the Church’s enemies within the walls – that “In the Third Secret” [i.e. the name popularly given to the third part of the Fatima message] “it is revealed that the crisis in the Church begins at the top.”
Laura: Suppose the married man has children to take care of, he can’t get an annulment, and you are crazy about him? Are you going to ruin everyone’s life because of the Church’s opposition to divorce? i was engaged once to a divorcee. For the fun of it, I asked my priest if I was going to be excommunicated. He was afraid I was going to call of the wedding if he said the wrong thing. He made it clear that I shouldn’t worry about such a technicality.
“For the fun of it, I asked my priest if I was going to be excommunicated…”
That single line makes clear to me that you are at best a nominal Catholic (name only). No true Catholic would think it fun to put such a question to a priest, much less relish the thought of being cut off from Christ, which is what the Church teaches about those who are unrepentant in mortal sin, including adultery.
If your story is true, and I have very serious doubts about that, then I’m afraid the answer of the priest renders him a nominal Catholic also.
Odd, then, that Christ Himself thought that such a “technicality” as divorce and remarriage was important enough to mention, and even to condemn as adultery, Odd that.
But here’s a question: supposing someone else comes along who is crazy about you – and you about her? Does wife number 2 get dumped as well? Will your priest tell you not to keep worrying about these “technicalities”? Oops, what am I saying? Of course not! Look at the routine “marriages” that take place today, what’s this they’re called again… Oh yes, I know – serial monogamy.
I’ve posted this a 1000 times before, but I think it is very relevant on this thread. Papolators and those who think that “Ecumenism, and inter-faith, dialogue are a work of The Holy Spirit” need to read this.
by Dr. William Marra
Editor’s note: This is edited transcript of a portion of the speech “Alternative to Schism” given at the Roman Forum Conference in August, 1995. In this presentation, Dr. Marra presents a clarification that will help Catholics to think critically and correctly, when confusing and contradictory statements emanate from even the highest authorities in the Church.
Belief and Obedience
My great teacher, Dietrich von Hildebrande wrote four outstanding books on the present crisis in the Church. Recently, his latest book, The Charitable Anathema was published. I wish we could mail a copy to Rome. A chapter in this book contains one of the most important lectures he ever gave to the Roman Forum. It concerns the difference between belief and obedience. He called it the critical difference. It was masterful.
The point is this: if there is a problem on a question of truth, and there’s a big dispute, and finally Rome speaks (invoking its infallible authority) and says, “This statement must be believed de fide”. Then this is the end of the dispute. Roma locuta causa finita. Rome has spoken, the case is finished. That is the end of it. Therefore, we owe assent of belief to statements of truth.
However, practical decisions of Churchmen, even the highest authorities; the Pope, bishops, priests are something quite different. We do not say, for example, that a command of a Pope or decision of a Pope to call a council is true or not. We can say that it is wise or not … it is opportune or not. Such a decision in no way asks us to assent to its truth. It asks us to obey the command or commands that pertain to us. This is what von Hildebrande meant by difference between belief and obedience. And we Catholics are never obliged to believe that a given command, or given decision of anyone, including the Pope, is necessarily that of the Holy Ghost.
The Limits of Divine Protection
There is a kind of papalotry going around. It acts as if no matter what comes out of Rome, it must have been inspired by the Holy Ghost. This line of thinking holds, for example, that if Vatican II was called, it means that the Holy Ghost wanted to call it. But this is not necessarily the case. Convoking Vatican II was a personal decision of John XXIII. He may have thought God was telling him to call it, but who knows? He has no special charism that guarantees he would recognize such a decision as coming from the Holy Ghost with theological certitude.
We can say that the Pope has the power to call a council. We can say that the authorities in the Church can call upon the Holy Spirit to guarantee, in a very narrow set of cases, that what comes from this council is de fide. (And nothing in Vatican II was pronounced de fide, Ed.)
The glory of the Church is that it has supernatural help to define truth. It has supernatural help to guarantee that its sacraments are efficacious and so on. But who said that the decision to call the council was protected by the Holy Ghost?
Let’s look at certain practical decisions of any Pope.
A Pope could command the suppression of a religious order. That happened a few centuries ago, the Pope suppressed the Jesuits. He was a little premature, I think they should have waited. This type of suppression concerns obedience, not belief.
For all practical purposes, Paul VI suppressed the Roman rite. We have no Roman rite. Pope Paul VI thought he had the liturgical power to do this. Von Hildebrande called it the greatest blunder of Paul VI’s Pontificate. So to suppress a religious order, to suppress a rite, to name a bishop is a matter of obedience, not belief, and it is not protected by the Holy Ghost.
We have 2,600 bishops in the Church. Does that mean the Holy Ghost picked all of those? That is blasphemy, friends. Do you want to blame the Holy Ghost for Archbishop Weakland?
As already mentioned, to call a council is a practical decision of the Pope. A person may piously believe that God inspired it. But no one can say that this is an object of faith.
Also, we must not believe that whoever becomes Pope is the man God wants to be Pope. This is a play on words that “this is the will of God.”
Every theologian has always understood there are two senses to the will of God. The positive will of God and the permissive will of God.
Now, we know that God positively wants holy people in the Church … “this is the will of God, your sanctification”. But when evil is done, this is through the permissive will of God. It is not something that God directly wills, but something that He permits when men exercise their free will.
Before any conclave which elects a Pope, the electors are supposed to pray for guidance by the Holy Spirit. Now, if they are truly men of God, and they really pray, it is to be expected that the Holy Spirit will give them the right choice. But if they’re willful, ambitious, carnal men, and they are not truly opening themselves to inspiration, an unworthy candidate of their own choosing may be the result. That doesn’t mean that the man elected ceases to be Pope. That doesn’t mean that he loses the protection of the Holy Spirit when he teaches faith and morals. But it could be that this Pope will end up to be a disaster.
Now how do I know this? Well, not because I know that any of the modern Popes have been a disaster, this is too controversial. But in Church history, there are many instances of disastrous Pontificates.
We Learn From History
Dr. John Rao is a good friend of mine. He is a professor of Church History. He is very unhappy with the so-called conservative people who, when they do their doctor’s degree in history, they will document all of the disastrous decisions of the past Popes. They will write about all the disastrous things that happened. But when it comes to the present situation, they’re mum. They believe that everything must be right. But if everything must be right and perfect in present Pontificates, then why do they write their doctoral dissertation on the disasters of Pope Honorius, Pope Liberius, Pope Alexander VI or anyone else?
So, Rao insists that we learn from history, and that in no way can we say “ ‘X’ was elected Pope therefore that is the will of God”. No, it may be either the positive will of God or merely the permissive will of God. But it could be that the man selected to be Pope may be the worst candidate for the office.
It is as if God says, “you carnal electors and you carnal people in the Church who did not pray enough will get what you deserve.” The Papacy is still protected, and will never teach with its infallible authority something as true that is false, but everything else is up for grabs. The given Pope might do every type of abomination … his personal life might be a disaster, he might be self-willed, and so on. It could be that he is a horrible person.
He can also be a disaster for the faith even if he is a good person.
The Papacy is not protected from such a calamity. And this is a point on which we ought to have a real dialogue with the so-called conservatives.
Reprinted from the December 1999 edition of Catholic Family News MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302 905-871-6292 * email@example.com
Many thanks for re-posting that because it bears repeating over and over again. However, there are, I’m afraid to say, visitors here who appear to be wilfully blind, and no matter how solid the facts presented to them, will not accept the truth.
Who was it said that some devils are only cast out by prayer and fasting? Of course, we must keep on doing what we can to enlighten the papolatrists but, next to sedevacantists, they are almost impossible to educate.
Thanks, though – Dr Marra’s clear article is an excellent contribution to this thread (and just about every other thread!)
Many commentators on this blog quote various holders of the Papal Office who reigned prior to 1963, and boldy uphold their every utterance, including private statements on issues like Fatima, as binding, and, indeed, of individual clerics, whose views concur with theirs, as authoritative, and then they condemn those who uphold the consistent teaching of the whole of The Magisterium, including the teaching of The Councils, as Papalotry if they disagree with the said teaching.
The reality is those who quote particular holders of The Papal Office, and a random collection of Cardinals as clerics, as the last word are guilty of Papalotry, whereas those who listen to the consistent teaching of all Popes, and the Magisterium, and all conciliar teaching – including what Pope Benedict has said is one of the greatest treasures of The Church, as dis his predecessors, and his successor – The Second Vatican Council.
Those who ignore Conciliar Teaching, and selectively quote a Pope, are surely the ones who need to avoid Papalotry.
It is note necessary to challenge your selective use of quotes and authors, on every issue above, because they each fall into the same error. Your belief that what you, your favourite Popes, Clerics, and authors, teach as a personal opinion, is binding on the whole Church, which in reply says to you it doesn’t!
Ok, here’s a challenge for you.
You keep insisting that the teaching of Vatican II and its Popes is in line with the teaching of the Traditional Magisterium.
So, please direct us to all the statements of pre-Vatican II Popes and Councils which even remotely indicate that ecumenism, inter-religious initiatives and religious freedom are good doctrines rather than perverse errors.
You made the claim. Now back it up! Everyone on the blog, I’m sure, is eagerly anticipating your response.
“Whereas those who listen to the consistent teaching of all Popes, and the Magisterium . . . “ That’s just it CS. There hasn’t always been consistency since the Council. Some post conciliar teaching cannot be squared with what the Church has always taught from the beginning. If you can bend truth, and say that what was always condemned is now supported, and if that works for you, then so be it. But don’t expect everybody to fall in line. You fail to understand the difference between false and true obedience. “Hold fast to what is good” ! And stop being a tiresome troll on blogs like this one (was Fr Hunwicke referring to you in this post http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/more-than-sherds.html the other day?) Try the ‘Pray Tell’ blog. It’s definitely more up your street.
The Church would disagree, and you are vocal individual and not, as far as I know, part of The Magisterium. That is the important point no matter what links, or quotes, you post.
Fr Hardwicke a former Anglican,who career and supposed meteoric career stalled, and now an authentic/ overnight Catholic source?
CS – Where have I seen that distinctive pattern of typos and word omissions before? Hmmmmm, let me think . . . something very familiar about it. Anyway, I digress. I did not quote Fr Hunwicke as an ‘authentic Catholic source’ for anything – this is a classic example of you putting words into the mouth of another. I merely asked whether you had been on his site, as he refers to ‘Common Sense’ in one of his posts about the problems of having a comment box. Although judging by the tone of your last paragraph, you are clearly as sniffy about him as you are most of the commenters on this blog. So why trawl these blogs? Is your life so empty that this is all you have to do?
May I suggest you try to “spot” authentic teaching, from an authoritative source, rather than spend your time on here,. Or is your life so empty that this is all you have to do?
What does it matter to you, CS, where I spend my time? As Christina (at 2:39) has correctly stated, you are clearly not on here for honest purposes.
It is you who commented on how I spend my time. I merely posed the same question/comment to you. I think it was legitimate, and right, that I do so. You said to me: “Or is your life so empty that this is all you have to do?” If you can’t remember doing that then it is no wonder you cannot remember who The Pope is, and when The Church last met in Council, and offered to the whole Church, and The World, teaching that is binding, and part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church.
Either you have problems comprehending the written word, or you are comfortable making up lies. Who on this blog has ever said the private statements of popes on issues like Fatima are binding? It has repeatedly been said, no one is obliged to believe in any apparition. Bloggers actually know their catechism!
And please do show us where any blogger on CT has condemned those who uphold the CONSISTENT teaching of the Magisterium.
Aren’t you selectively quoting a pope when you go on about ecumenism and inter-faith prayer meetings? Show me how this is the CONSISTENT teaching of the Church. When and where, before JP II, did this sort of thing happen? If you can prove this is what the Church has ALWAYS taught- I will attend the next inter-faith prayer meeting in the diocese.
Athanasius, in condemning what he calls Papaltory, but which a truly Tradition Catholic like myself, would call attentiveness to The Magisterium, then, like many others here, preceded to quote the private teachings of pre-conciliar Popes, and their own private revelations, in favour of Fatima, and Quito (?) etc.
In terms of pre Saint John Paul 2nd, dialogue, and meetings with Anglicans, especially The Archbishop of Canterbury, and the establishment of ARCIC predate him by a long way.
I think it was sometime before 1950 that Catholics were given permission to pray The “Our Father” with other Christians.
Since 1965 The Church has been working with a Working Group of The World Council of Churches.
We cannot pray with non Christians, but they, and we, can pray in each others presence, as has happened for many decades.
Is every page, paragraph, phrase in the bible binding?
All you need to know and believe like the rest of us is that the Catholic Church has declared the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture to be a dogma of Faith. Not being a Biblical scholar, I can’t answer for the methods employed by the Sacred Writers in every page, paragraph and phrase of the Bible. I can assure you, however, that these did not interfere in any way with the conveying of divine truth.
What is your opinion?
I can highly recommend a great book for you. It has the answers to your questions and much more besides. It’s called ‘Jesus Christ and His Church: A Manual of Christian Apologetics’ by Fr Ferbeck. I have found it to be very helpful in the past, especially for helping converts. It can be bought online here:- http://www.traditions-monastiques.com/en/english-christian-catholic-books-shop-prayers-confirmation-gifts/59-jesus-christ-church-l1102e.html God bless you!
The whole of The Bible is binding, but it must be read, heard, and interpreted, within The Household of Faith, that is The Catholic Church, and not by individuals. It is always, however, The Word of God to be adhered to, and read under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit.
Successive Pope(s) have engaged in inter-faith, and ecumenical dialogue………. But never, ever, praying with non Christians. (CS)
(The mufti explained it all to me….At that moment I felt the need to pray. I asked him: ‘Shall we pray a little?’ To which he responded: ‘Yes, yes’ (Pope Francis)
When, yesterday evening, this thread had elicited 83 responses, a rough count showed that 24 were from 3 trolls while 34 were taken up by the replies of a few of the usual knowledgeable and infinitely patient bloggers. This left only 25 trying to address the issues raised by the thread directly. As has already been pointed out on this and other threads, these trolls ignore the responses for the simple reason that they are not here for an honest purpose. And this is only the latest of the recent threads to be highjacked like this. I wonder if I am the only one to look at the blog hopefully night after night, only to give up and hope for better luck next time.
I may be wrong, but, from a brief reading of the posts so far, I don’t think anyone expressed the horror I felt when I read what Pope Francis said on this flight from Turkey – perhaps the distractions came in too fast and thick:
…….when I entered the Mosque…….it was completely religious. And I saw that wonder! The Mufti explained things very well to me, with such meekness, and using the Quran, which speaks of Mary and John the Baptist. He explained it all to me….At that moment I felt the need to pray.
This sounds to me as if Pope Francis is claiming to have had a religious experience, – ‘I saw that wonder’, while an infidel catechised him ‘explaining it all’ – it doesn’t matter what ‘it’ was – from a diabolical source, and this inspired him to prayer.
I think that this is a truly appalling revelation – coming from any Catholic, let alone the vicar of Christ on earth. How can one give the expected answer to the question ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’ after this and similar revelations?
The Pope didn’t say we pray together, but shall we pray?
I think he was marvelling at The Building and not the teachings.
In so far as my postings, I and then reply to responses, That is not trolling, but in most civilised, and certainly Christian, societies be deemed to be considerate, courteous and polite.
A scatter gun use of the word” troll” because you disagree with the opinions a person, rightly and in good faith offers, is the exact opposite, and reflects badly on the person who fires the shot.
Further, a discussion involves contrary opinions being heard. The alternative is the blind leading the blind, and something worse than a polemic,
“The Pope didn’t say we pray together, but shall we pray?” How much more disingenuous can one get?
My use of the word ‘troll’ was certainly not ‘scatter gun’. It applied to you, specifically, and I am correct in that application.
You are entitled to your personal opinion.
However, if The Pope prayed with the other person then the Media has been pretty silent about that, and, I think a fellow commentator here, one of your own, has pointed out Muslims do not pray with others. So a silent Media, and no condemnation of a Muslim breaching Islamic rules? I think I am right, therefore.
I fear it is others here, including you, that is being disingenuous in twisting a simple, plain, statement by The Successor of St Peter, lawfully, reigning gloriously, and holding The Keys.
Believe me, you have my sympathy and I fully understand why you say what you say. I agree with your every word. And the stats are rivetting – thanks for that.
The fact is, however, as CS’s response below to your excellent comment reveals, the ignorance out there is truly diabolical There are people who bend the truth this way and that way, inside out and upside down, rather than say “Oh I see the wood there, that’s a tree, I see..” It is truly almost impossible to tell the trolls from the genuinely ignorant. I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt, not least because I know for a fact that if they ARE trolls, then, much to their annoyance, I’m sure, they are really helping others who read this blog but don’t feel confident enough to comment. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told in person and by email, how our bloggers responses to these numpties, really have enlightened the genuinely confused and ignorant. By playing their silly games, in other words, trolls afford us the opportunity to educate – and that’s what we are about! I know it’s irritating for readers suspect the troll-like behaviour but, as a teacher yourself, you will know that it takes time to suss out those who need special educational needs and those who just need a few words in their silly ears…
For example, look at the first line of CS’s response to you: incredibly, and presumably with a straight face, he wrote: “The Pope didn’t say we pray together but shall we pray?”
Now, this is someone who is either as thick as mince, or genuinely afraid to acknowledge the truth for fear it makes him a schismatic. I can’t say. I do have an opinion, but would prefer not to share it in public… Be assured, however, that if it became unquestionably clear that someone is taking up precious cyber-space for no other reason than to take us round in circles, then he will end up in moderation. I’ve not had time to read through all of today’s comments, but I will do so before the end of the day and then, if any action is required, moi will move in with ruthless cunning 😯
Badly taught Catholics are very hard work. Right now, they make building a skyscraper seem like a piece of chocolate cake…
Which reminds me – I’m off for a break!
I did reply with a straight face. The report says he suggested a pause for prayer.
No media report has stated that they prayed together, and one of your regular commentators has already observed Muslims are forbidden from praying with Muslims, and, to date, no high ranking Muslim has condemned the Mufti for a breach of Islamic rules and, further, after Assisi, each one of the meetings, The Vatican made clear Catholics cannot pray with non Christians.
If people don’t have the intellect to connect facts, and read correctly, a factual media report – and indeed even after they quote it directly on their own blog – it is not obvious they have the intellect, or integrity, to stand in judgement of others, or their intellectual powers.
“….it is not obvious they have the intellect, or integrity, to stand in judgement of others, or their intellectual powers.”
Er….are you now, expecting us to actually ‘stand in judgment of others, or their intellectual powers’? Whatever happened to, “Who am I to judge?”
He was wrong to suggest a pause for prayer. He was wrong to enter a mosque. End of.
As for the rest – nonsense. Ring the Muslim Council of Britain and they will tell you they are delighted when there are readings from the Koran in Catholic churches and when Catholics want to pray in mosques. Absolutely delighted.
Excellent observation! This thread like the one on Our Lady of Good Success is being hijacked, and it is frustrating.
For a change, I’d like to hear of this pope offering his support – using the media to broadcast it- to the Christians of the middle east, instead of having prayerful moments in the temples of their persecutors.
I have taken to using “Is a frog waterproof” instead of “Is the Pope Catholic” XD
Well said Christina, an excellent comment. Common Sense has made a statement on this blog, Pope Francis’s words and actions have shown CS’s statement to be manifestly false – but he will just go on and on, because, as you said, he is not here for an honest purpose. Although, to be fair, he may have health problems which lead him to behave in such an unreasonable manner, we just don’t know.
Is this comment by Westminsterfly: “Although, to be fair, he may have health problems which lead him to behave in such an unreasonable manner, we just don’t know”, writing of me, what you deem to be Christian and fair comment?
Even a Village idiot could only read it as an offensive comment, and an attack on those, not me, who may have health problems of the type alluded to.
It will be a very poor reflection on this blog, if you think it is acceptable.
“Is this comment by Westminsterfly: “Although, to be fair, he may have health problems which lead him to behave in such an unreasonable manner, we just don’t know”, writing of me, what you deem to be Christian and fair comment?”
Yes, I agree. Very Christian and more than fair. WF is always very kindly and concerned for others. I happen to know him personally and a kinder soul you will never meet.
But, please, don’t be too hard on yourself. I don’t think you’re a Village Idiot at all. You misunderstood and wanted to clarify. Now you are aware that he is being kind, I’m sure you will want to apologise, but I know that WF is also humble, as well as charitable, and he won’t want you offering him any apologies.
Wasn’t that awful, Pope Francis asking the Mufti if they should pray together? What if the Mufti said “yes”? With whom would the God of the First Commandment be more angry… Mufti or Pope?
Out of your own mouth, so to speak, you condemn yourself.
In the past few days you have said comments like those from WF would not be accepted, and, now, you endorse them.
What type of health problems was I alluding to CS – are you a mind-reader as well as an infallible interpreter of all things ecclesiastical? For all I know, you could well have gout, which could easily cause you to be irascible and try and pick fault in others all the time.
There are many other health conditions, physical and mental, which cause people to behave strangely. But you seem to think I am alluding to one type. Very interesting.
You, however, in a previous post at 3:24 said about me: “If you can’t remember doing that then it is no wonder you cannot remember who The Pope is, and when The Church last met in Council, and offered to the whole Church, and The World, teaching that is binding, and part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church”.
In spite of this comment, implying that I have some form of dementia (which is a mockery of those who suffer from that terrible condition) I didn’t go running to Editor asking if your comment was ‘fair’ or ‘Christian’ and trying to apportion blame for your comment to the blog, so nice try, but I’m sure Editor will be able to see through that one.
I’m not entering into any further correspondence with you on this or any other subject. You’re clearly getting some kind of warped excitement from this attention. Christina was right. Whatever purposes you are here for, they are not honest – or healthy.
I can testify to the fact that you have an excellent memory. You’ve never forgotten that I owe you that tenner which you lent me ten years ago. Yorkshire-men, they say, are Scotsmen with the generosity squeezed out! 😀
I am happy that God will stand in judgement of you. You spoke of being disingenuous, others might call your latest response a lie.
I would advise you to check the time of Confessions in a Church in Communion with Rome.
No I haven’t suggested you have dementia, but that it is odd you cannot remember I replied to a question/comment you posed, and then you suggested I was impudent in posing the same question comment to you. It is odd that you did so. Lets leave it at that.
You wrote of yourself “I didn’t go running to Editor asking if your comment was ‘fair’ ”
I am pretty sure that in the same post in which The Editor counselled against “ad hominem” attacks, she revealed insiders, like yourself, email her to get non insiders banned, and that that is the best way, as she doesn’t want to appear to respond to the baying crowd of junkies.
Therefore, I can accept you didn’t publicly go screaming to The Editor. I, however, publicly appealed to her publicly , – as that has more integrity than a snide, hidden email attack , something she prefers – to publicly uphold, her public utterances.
It is, strangely, something she demands of The Pope, and others, every day.
I guess it is another of those situations where a truly Christian person might ask What Would Jesus Do?
You are spoiling this thread with you silliness. I must correct you when you accuse WF of emailing me to get people like you banned. I have certainly had emails asking me to moderate people who are manifestly not seriously blogging, but I can not remember a single occasion when WF did so. And how do you know what sort of communication I prefer? I certainly prefer people who are not willing to keep to our simple house rules to get lost. That’s about as straightforward as I can say it.
Anyway, it’s none of your business who emails me about what, and a red herring.
Let this be the end of these personal comments. I’m now deleting all comments that are not focused – exclusively – on the topic. And if I take it into my head to start pressing my delete button, an awful lot of the above posts will also disappear. So gerragrip
Now, to help you re-focus…
Why, do you think, did God allow Pope Pius XI to publish Mortalium Animos, when He must have known He was going to reveal the very OPPOSITE of its contents to the 20th century pontiffs?
Comment removed – persists in the error that popes cannot err, as long as they are alive – crackers.
I have been banned again.
Ed: you weren’t “banned” but – since you have made that allegation again, despite my previous explanations that (1) sometimes, a blip of WordPress I presume, this happens and (2) I always give warning of impending moderation before placing anyone in moderation – then “banned” you are, chum. Don’t waste your time posting here again – we get the message… Everything and anything a pope says and does is right and proper, the only rule of thumb being that he has to be alive at the time. Once he’s dead, he doesn’t count. And anyone who says otherwise isn’t a Catholic. Enjoy your new religion. Goodbye.
That is not a fair representation of what I said. I have said it can’t be Papalatory to listen to a living Pope, and not if you quote a deceased Pope, who expressed a personal opinion, just because you agree with him!
Ed: a papolatrist is someone (like you) who does not understand the nature of the papacy, and who thinks everything a pope says is correct, unless he’s dead. That’s what you have said. What was the term, again… Oh yes, the “dead popes society”. Some Catholic who would refer to past popes in that way. Now, please stop putting in comments as I always feel duty bound to correct your ignorance and I really don’t have the time. Buy some solid Catholic books on the crisis and study up. Then come back and no need to apologise.
I replied earlier to this but the answer, strangely, didn’t appear.
The basic tenet of this blog is that holders of The Papal Office, primarily since the first one in the 1960;s was elected, can and do err, and, if you apply that same logic to pre-1960 you may have answered your own question. You asked : “why, do you think, did God allow Pope Pius XI to publish Mortalium Animos, when He must have known He was going to reveal the very OPPOSITE of its contents to the 20th century pontiffs?”
You apply total infallibility to every Pope elected before the 1960’s – something you call papalatory – and then say say after that they seem to have lost that authority.
Ed: well, the fact that this post went up, should have allowed you to apologise for accusing me of “banning” you (before I actually did so – now you are in moderation because it seems clear to me that you are not in good faith here.) And your continuing inability to understand the basic Catholic teaching that we know if a teaching is authentically Christian when it has been believed by the whole Church everywhere and always, proves my point. Stop wasting my time now. If you take time to type further comments, be assured they will be routinely deleted.
That’s not what was said. You have misread and misunderstood Editor’s comment.
The Syllabus of Pius IX is infallible teaching that can never be altered or recanted, since it is divine doctrine. So how is it possible for you and others like you to state that the Conciliar Popes have the power to change the unchangeable to meet different times and circumstances?
Are you saying that it is possible for God to contradict Himself; that He alters His doctrine to suit worldly trends and human whim? It sounds like this is what you’re saying and it’s a ridiculous, if not sacrileges, notion.
I suggest you re-read Editor’s comments, slowly!
Ed: note, now that Common Sense is in moderation, all posts using his name will go into moderation, as yours just did. Anyone who still wishes to correct his errors, should refer to him as CS.
Editor, Christina & WF,
I have to say that I am of the same opinion as the rest of you, have been for some time but was a bit reticent about saying so in case others thought me unkind to poor unfortunates who were only trying to get to the truth.
I noticed immediately that Domchas, David Roemer, Concerned Catholic, Perplexed and Common Sense all appeared at the same time with the same anti-doctrinal attitude. The tactic they employed was exactly the same in all cases; take up the thread space with innate questions and propositions that no genuine Catholic would ever propose. Their manner of writing has been childish to say the least and I have to say that I can’t believe they’re that daft.
My suspicion is that they are known to each other, at least in a general way, perhaps as contributors to some morally dissenting blog somewhere and they’ve been having a wee bit of fun by coming on here to disrupt the blog.
The good thing is that if they thought that, then they were wrong. All they succeeded in doing was have us make clearer than ever the Church’s Magisterial teaching for the benefit of all those genuine readers out there who may have had genuine questions. If what I suspect is true, then it is evident that God does in fact bring good from evil. But I think it’s now time to send them away back to where they came from.
Can I say specifically, and without clarification I do not know, or have any other form of contact, with anyone who posts on this blog. I refute the suggestion 100%.
Ed: OK, thanks for that. Now, goodbye.
I agree. Editor, in giving everyone a fair chance to question, and express his/her doubts on the blog, has helped “to make clearer than ever the Church’s Magisterial teaching for the benefit of all…”
You would not believe the number of times I’ve had the same questions about Church teaching/doctrine/the binding force of Vatican ii/ecumenism thrown at me! So, whether or not the questions were intended to disrupt, the answers served as a refresher course!
A third attempt:
I do not know anyone who posts here, or have any other form of contact with anyone who does.
I refute any suggestion I do outright, and without any qualification of any kind.
As you know – and as it is stated clearly in our About Us section – when we get to the going round in unacceptable circles stage, I will moderate these nuisances. Until then it really doesn’t help for space to be taken up telling me what I already know. I hope that doesn’t sound sharp but I’m really pressed for time and I do get irritated with myself, be assured, for my saintly patience with them… I will need to toughen up 😀
As you know, I am unusually busy these days and so it is taking me even longer to keep up with the blog. But be assured, those of you who make huge efforts to educate on this blog are doing a great job in countering the evil influence of those who post heresies. The truth speaks for itself, and I have had (actually on this very day) two emails from people telling me that they have been helped by the repetition of the answers to Common Sense and Perplexed. So, whether they are struggling intellectually with the teaching of the Church on the role of the pope, or whether they are trolls, readers are being helped by the contributions of our excellent blog team.
CS is now in moderation. And I will do my best to be quicker off the mark in future, and not cut quite so much slack to those who do not grasp what is being explained to them in a reasonable length of time. As I’ve learned from experience in such discussion – both oral and written – over the years, those who resist the revealed truth the most, usually do so because they are living what one priest described to me as a “counter-witness” to the Gospel. An immoral life, in other words. Who knows? Certainly, something is making them blind and wilful, and if not sin, what, then? Rhetorical question 😀
Yes, I do understand your predicament and I agree that there’s a fine balance between cutting the ignorant some slack and sticking them into moderation. The good news is that the more slack these folks get, the more they hang themselves with their outrageous claims and demonstrate to others their intransigent dissent from sound doctrine. The teaching of the Church always triumphs in the end!
Exactly, Ath. Spot, absolutely ON!
Comment deleted – never pays to say our bloggers – especially Athanasius – are mentally challenged. I tried it once – ouch! For the record, I’m one of the few people in this fair land with a letter from a doctor saying I’m sane. Where’s yours? 😀
I too have a sanity clause written into my discharge letter!
Yes, but you need annual follow-up appointments. I was sent home with firm instructions never to return!
My replies are being deleted as I post them!
Ed: then, take the hint!
Let me ask you this: what are the fruits of the ecumenical movement? I have to say that the Church condemned ecumenism for very good reasons. The fruit of this diabolical activity is religious indifferentism, which inevitably leads to apostasy and loss of Faith.
I grew up in a very ecumenical parish. Our parish priest exhorted us to attend ecumenical services in order to pray with members of our “sister churches”. He encouraged me to play the organ for the local Church of Scotland, attend Protestant youth clubs and holiday camps. At the same time, the Archdiocese of Glasgow, under the stewardship of Cardinal Winning, played a full part in ecumenical activities throughout the city. Eventually I stopped going to Mass and joined the Church of Scotland.
If I had grown up prior to the erroneous teachings of the post conciliar popes this would never have happened. The Church, in Her wisdom, knows that to protect the faithful from indifferentism ecumenism must be condemned. She knows that no good fruit could come from it. No pope can change this. The popes since Vatican II have tried and look at the state the Church is in! It has brought forth bad fruit because it is not from God.
You need to remember that the mission of the Church is to lead all souls to Heaven. It’s not to create a tolerant, caring society, where there is no Divine Truth, only opinions that are all equally respected. How does the ecumenical movement aide the Church in Her mission to lead all souls to Heaven? Quite simply, it doesn’t. It hinders.
It is a hindrance to the Church’s mission. It’s also a sin against charity. Charity is not affirming someone’s erroneous beliefs. It is explaining the truth and doing everything in one’s power to help another get to Heaven. The ecumenical movement has a Protestant agenda. You won’t find “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” discussed at these events. Our Lady is never mentioned. The Sacraments are downplayed. Protestant hymns are sung. Indeed, ecumenism is an attack on Catholicism, hence the reason it was condemned.
We must remember that the Second Vatican Council did not have the authority to contradict previous Church teaching. No other Council in the Church’s history did that. This was a Council which set out under the guise of a Pastoral Council and ended up a revolution in cope and mitre.
It is the only Council to fail to condemn the major error of its day, namely Communism. Its documents are infallible only when they reaffirm Church doctrine. The errors contained in Vatican II have never been declared binding on Catholics by any of the post conciliar popes.
You need to take all of this into account and simply cling to Traditional Catholic teaching. “By their fruits you shall know them” is the litmus test. There are only bad fruits produced by Ecumenism and the other novelties of Vatican II.
That’s a fantastic post, very clear. Thank you for it, because it is very helpful to countering the ecumania around us.
I have attended many places of worship, of other faiths, and many ecumenical gatherings, and on a daily basis, almost, have ecumenical, and inter-faith, contact, but not one inch would I alter, or abandon my Catholic faith. It is not sensible to blame, “The Church”, or “a priest” for our poor decisions. The Church is still Catholic, your priest is probably still a priest, if he is alive, and the majority of your fellow parishioners probably stayed as Catholics. It is folly to blame others, as Adam blamed Eve, for our personal choices.
The Second Vatican Council changed not one authentic teaching. Not one.
Ed: this is too hilarious not to release. Priceless. CS has obviously never heard of Iota Unum written by a peritus (expert at the Council).
attending places of worship “of other faiths” is at best an implicit rejection of the infallible Catholic dogma ‘Outside the Church no salvation’. What your presence at these places of false worship does is give your misguided neighbour the impression that his religion is pleasing to God, which it is not. The Catholic religion alone is pleasing to God, and it alone can save souls, invincible ignorance excepted.
This is the perennial Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church, whether you like it or not. Hence, you have in fact, by your imprudent actions, abandoned the Catholic Faith. To enter a house of false worship and pray there is tantamount to apostasy from the true Church founded by Our Lord.
The martyrs sacrificed their lives rather than burn a grain of incense to the false gods of the pagans, yet you say it’s perfectly ok to pray with non-Catholics and non-Christians.
I’m afraid you really are very seriously misguided.
attending places of worship “of other faiths” is at best an implicit rejection of the infallible Catholic dogma ‘Outside the Church no salvation’. What your presence at these places of false worship does is give your misguided neighbour the impression that his religion is pleasing to God, which it is not. The Catholic religion alone is pleasing to God, and it alone can save souls, invincible ignorance excepted.
This is the perennial Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church, whether you like it or not. Hence, you have in fact, by your imprudent actions, abandoned the Catholic Faith. To enter a house of false worship and pray there is tantamount to apostasy from the true Church founded by Our Lord.
The martyrs sacrificed their lives rather than burn a grain of incense to the false gods of the pagans, yet you say it’s perfectly ok to pray with non-Catholics and non-Christians.
I’m afraid you really are very seriously misguided.
To visit other places of worship for educational purposes, and engage in dialogue, is to engage in the New Evangelisation. Not to do so, is to deny our mission, and baptismal calling, to take The Gospel to the ends of the earth.
Every time you buy a product made by a company that makes other products that are morally wrong you risk causing offence, and doing harm, but it a world like ours the consumer has no choice. However, to enter deliberately into a place where others worship, according to a different faith, to engage in dialogue, and witness to your own faith can only do good. That is what The Magisterium says. I think I am wise to listen to them, and not you.
“To visit other places of worship for educational purposes and engage in dialogue, is to engage in the New Evangelisation.”
No need to visit. There are multitudes of books and videos that will tell you all you need to know. Where does the Magisterium say we must engage in dialogue? A source would be helpful.
“Not to do so, is to deny our mission, and baptismal calling, to take The Gospel to the ends of the earth.”
The Church’s mission is to “Go teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father….etc” Can you provide some evidence that Church leaders, namely the pope, who have entered heretical places of worship and dialogued with heretics, schismatics and pagans, have fulfilled this mission? Please and thank you.
“However, to enter deliberately into a place where others worship, according to a different faith, to engage in dialogue, and witness to your own faith can only do good.”
I refer you back to my comment last night regarding the fruits of the ecumenical movement. What good fruits has the ecumenical movement produced? What evidence do you have to show that:
1. Through ecumenical activities a witness to the Catholic faith is given.
2. These types of activities can “only do good”.
If you could provide some answers, along with reliable sources as credible evidence, that would be fantastic.
I apologise if it was not you Petrus, but I believe it was you blamed ecumenism for you leaving The Church at one point. However, anyone who did that would be making a solely personal judgement and they cannot blame others.
It is by encountering The Catholic Church though ecumenical, and inter-faith, contact that many thousands, if not millions, have become Catholics.
Ed: please quote the statistics for this incredible claim – with source. It was when Michael Davies took a breakdown of the (literal) breakdown of the Church in the UK that Cardinal Ratzinger finally woke up to the fact that the bishops of the UK were being, how can I put it, ecumenical with the truth by reporting thriving Catholic communities where – in fact – the truth was in meltdown. So, facts, please, stats with a record to show the link with ecumenism and inter-faith activity.
In building bridges The Pope is furthering the work of Christ and his Church.
All of the questions you pose you can research yourself, but you would need to use Catholic Sources, and not those of breakaway groups who say they are more Catholic than The Pope.
Ed: again, please name the “breakaway” groups and don’t include the SSPX because you will waste hours and hours of time trying to find a Vatican statement which describes them as schismatic (i.e. “breakaway”.) Which groups then?
The Classic! I’ve lost count how many times I’ve read that from someone who Loves to make unsubstantiated claims but does not have a shred of evidence to back up their crazy claims. You are nothing if not predictable, CS!
Then the Church must have denied her mission for nearly 2000 years by forbidding her children to have anything to do with false religions.
You’re just making this up as you go along! I’ve told you before, stick to what the Church has always taught and stop giving us your personal opinion.
A peritus at The Council was deemed to be an “expert”, but not necessarily the sole expert, and experts disagree amongst themselves. More than once here when non regulars have mentioned theologians you, and others, have retorted but they are not The Magisterium. And so, yet again you show you are inconsistent, if you are with an “expert, they are to be listened to, and, if not, they are to be ignored.
Joseph Ratzinger was a peritus at the Council, and he offered an alternative/critical viewpoint on some of what was discussed, but overall he, as Pope Benedict, reasserted The Council is part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church. And, from memory, did he not, in his earlier years, did he not once Counsel a pastoral response to the Divorced and Remarried not far removed from the views of Cardinal Kasper. The more one is steeped in the actual teaching of The Council, and responsive to The Holy Spirit, the more a person sees that it is one of the greatest Treasures of The Church.
Further, every Synod, and Council, will hear from different viewpoints, and experts, as they actually discuss things, but it is the formal conclusions of the assembly, approved by The Pope, that count.
Such ignorance of historical events! You need to read some authoritative accounts of what these “experts” got up to at Vatican II. Hans Kung, one of the most liberal and influential tells us frankly what he and others managed to achieve by devious means.
Read “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, a thorough account of the machinations of Vatican II from a priest in good standing who was present at the Council as a press officer. He tells the story as it unfolded without bias towards one side or the other. If you haven’t read these accounts of the Council then you need to keep your mouth shut and act casual!
You’re a scream. Not at all Catholic, but good for a laugh.
As I do not want to share biographical details I will just observe that, as usual, you are far from the mark.
An excellent post!
I couldn’t agree with you more “Ecumenism is an attack on Catholicism”, it is insidious, devious and diabolical. The last, because it flies in the face of what the Church has always taught and with disastrous consequences.
I will mention one example of the fruits of ecumenism: A friend of mine, a ‘good’ Catholic, held in high esteem in her parish, married a man who was raised Catholic, but who then left the Church to become a Protestant minister. They were married in the Church, my friend wouldn’t have it any other way. The man conducts the Protestant service on Sunday in his church, then trots off to a Catholic church ( a safe distance from his church to avoid giving scandal to his protestant flock) with his wife to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion. And nobody finds anything odd in that, not my friend and not even the priests of her parish.
Love of our fellowman necessarily flows from our love of God, it cannot replace it.
My comment “Excellent post”, was for Petrus!
Comment deleted – never pays to call editor “stupid” 😯
I agree. The ecumenical movement is a threat to the Faith, not a work of the Holy Spirit, as C****** S**** opined, and I can testify to this in my own life, and in the lives of so many others I have encountered. I was berated some years ago by a Mill Hill missionary priest, when I told him that I had attempted to correct an Anglican colleague, who had some devotion to Our Lady, but still erroneously clung to the ‘branch theory’. The priest told me I was a ‘right-winger’ and that I shouldn’t have ‘disturbed my colleague’s conscience’. No wonder the missions are in a state.
Christopher Ferrara’s book ‘The Great Façade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church’ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Facade-Christopher-Ferrara/dp/1890740101/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423514637&sr=8-1&keywords=the+great+facade is a great read and covers all these subjects in a very clear and easy-to-digest way.
I hesitate to say anything, but based on recent posts, it seems odd to moderate “CS” as most orthodox Catholics would agree with him or her. Certainly the hierarchy would.
Bless Our Pope,
I’d like to ask you this question, since you chose that username and defend CS.
How do we know which pope is speaking for the immutable and unchangeable God, when we have contradictory teachings as in the case of Pope Francis and Pius XI ?
Thanks for that. And until your question is answered, I won’t be responding to BOP’s comment and I urge others not to do so either. Then, if we get a papolatrist’s answer, BOP will go into moderation as well.
No more Mssssss Nice Gal !
This is another comparison given on the Remnant blog. I think it is tremendous:
Francis on a Plane: “That example I mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth (child) and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is an irresponsibility [said with emphasis]. “No but I trust in God! [mocking the woman’s presumed conviction].” But God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that, excuse me if I use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood! This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can seek and I know so many, many ways out that are licit and that have helped this.”
Pius XI, Casti Cannubi: ” “Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfilment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.”
At the time of Pius Xl every act of child birth was risky, even in the Western World. Most of those risks have now been alleviated, – but risks remain – and women can be up, and about, within 24 hours nowadays. To compare the two decades, and ignore advances in caring for the health, and welfare, of mother and baby is nonsense.
The woman who had seven children, by caesarean, was pushing the limits of medicine, and science, and testing God in a way that was not responsible, Pope Francis, as always, was making a sensible point. He was concerned for the health of the woman, and didn’t want to risk her other children being left without a Mother as consequence of her being irresponsible.
Ed: at least one other mother of several (I think seven) born C-section, challenged the pope but I am unable to find the article at the moment and have to be elsewhere shortly.
Do you think we came down with the last shower? Away and feed that rubbish to the pagans, they’ll clutch at any old Papal straw to legitimise abortion and contraception.
Pope Francis said what he said and every Catholic who is a Catholic knows that what he said wasn’t Catholic.
As regards this daft statement: “At the time of Pius Xl every act of child birth was risky…”
How much more risky today in our selfish, contraceptive, abortionist culture? Please!
At the time of Pius X, every act of childbirth was risky. True, that is why the saint, commended women for their generosity.
Today women can be up and about within 24 hours, true again! So why was this pope moved to upbraid the mother, publicly, for her generosity? His ‘concern’ smacks more of showing the world he is a responsible citizen, doing his bit to keep the population down. Was it right for him to hold the Catholic mother up for ridicule? Because you know that is exactly what mothers of large families have to deal with.
One pope recognizes and commends the generosity required to risk one’s life because he trusts God will provide, the other not only does not recognize the sacrifice but insults the mother’s intelligence by asking her to be ‘responsible’.
The same issue- two different responses . Which one is the right response?
Two different accounts of creation in Genesis; two different genealogies of Jesus in the infancy narratives; Joseph is the interlocutor of the angel in Matthew, whilst it is Mary who speaks with the angel in Luke: are all these texts equally binding, literally and chronologically true and accurate? In the Old Testament God tells his people “an eye for an eye”, whilst in the New Testament, shock and horror (!!!), Jesus “overrules” the precept (You have heard it said, but I say to you…) and asks us to pray and do good to those who hate us. If God can give opposite instructions between Testaments, why not Popes in successive documents (especially when these treat doctrine (subject to change) and NOT dogma (unchangeable)?
In each case the ” different accounts” are making an inter-related but differing theological point, and the essential point is made in both.
God is Our Lord, and Father of all creation.
Jesus is The New Adam, and a new creation, and the fullness of all the prophecies and The Covenants established by God in the history of humanity.
Joseph, like his Wife, was given insight into how they, together, could do God’s will by welcoming The Christ Child.
I suspect that if you ever share the history of your own family, and your part in it, you will emphasis different things at different times, and partly because you want to communicate inter-relating truths to a different audience, or to reinforce something not fully emphasised in the other versions.
I would put it to you that what you have in the Scripture verses you have quoted is complementary accounts and not contradictory. The way a Catholic looks at it is these differing texts give us a complete picture. You cannot say that Scripture contains error, only that the Church is the legitimate interpreter of Holy Scripture.
I would also say that Our Lord fulfilled the law and you cannot at all equate this with different popes openly contradicting predecessors.
Petrus has given you the proper answer to your comment, so I will just add a few words.
If you are saying that Sacred Scripture is contradictory and false, which appears to be the case, then maybe you should take yourself off elsewhere and not waste your time or ours on this blog.
If, however, you genuinely think that you’ve latched on to something that the greatest saints and Doctors of the Church missed for centuries, then I would suggest a psychiatrist.
No, you haven’t stumbled upon contradictory Scriptural texts, just complimentary ones, as Petrus has pointed out and as Catholics have understood for many, many generations.
My advice is not to become your own authority in matters your clearly do not fully comprehend. The Study and interpretation of Sacred Scripture belongs to the Church instituted by Our Lord and commissioned by Him to teach. Once people start taking that role upon themselves, whether for reasons of pride or to justify a particular lifestyle which is opposed to Scriptural revelation, then they are heading down a road to total confusion and ultimate ruin.
I often challenge Protestant friends about their false religion being based on the fallacy of “Sola Scriptura”. How can a “church” that claims unquestioning adherence to everything in Scripture conveniently ignore Scripture on the ordination of women and homosexuality (there are numerous other ways Protestants depart from Scripture but these are the two areas that come up in conversation the most often )?
Protestants often point to the Old Testament about being put to death for various offences and say “the Bible says this and we don’t follow it anymore”. My answer is that the punishments in the Old Testament were just because they belonged to a the jurisdiction of the time and concerned those who were not redeemed by Our Lord. These matters do not impinge on the Doctrine of the Faith.
Areas such as homosexuality and ordination of women are completely different as they are part of the deposit of the Faith. Scripture cannot contain error but we are not free to pick and choose. It is for the legitimate authority, the Church, to interpret Scripture.
I hope these words will help poor perplexed.
Petrus, many thanks for your prompt and enlightening reply. Personally, I see no problem with the contents of my previous post regarding Sacred Scripture: the different (not contradictory!) accounts of salvific events do indeed nourish our faith in a very enriching way (a sign of God’s abundant grace!) and I accept your “complementary accounts” as a satisfactory response. I only hasten to add that I in no way believe Scripture to be false or contradictory because God does not deceive us.
It is the Word of Life and, as such, I venerate it. Thanks again, God bless you and your family!
Someone asked me today why posts from Common Sense are still being published when he is in moderation and I said his posts would be routinely deleted. To clarify, when someone is in moderation, their posts are read in advance by me and if they are on topic and making a genuine point for discussion, they will be allowed through. Common Sense’s posts since moderation have been in that category. If he “goes circular” on us again, e.g. about the role of the pope, then his posts won’t get through. Simple.
Comment deleted. Always a mistake to call the editor “daft” and to say that she “is a hypocrite a nasty minded woman intent on spreading malicious gossip whenever she can.” Also a mistake to suggest that: “She should be publically outed and shamed for the way she has caused harm and hurt to others . Post this [editor] if you have the honesty to do so!”
Editor: No way! 😯
Isn’t it funny how the most low down and nasty personal attacks always come from the resident or wandering troll screaming charity, who pops in to defend the indefensible and when s/he runs out of ways to express the one thought s/he has, resorts to name calling? >:D
It’s really funny. Hilarious, in fact. How dare those low down, nasty trolls make personal remarks! 😀 (couldn’t resist!)
The reason is, of course, that they don’t have the truth on their side. So, what else can they do but make personal remarks to put us down? Very sad.
One sees so many strands of research being done these days – particularly with regard to media and newer technologies – has anyone ever done any research into why these unhappy characters frequent blogs that clearly don’t chime with what they believe, solely, it would seem, with the intention of irritating those who enjoy using the blog and who gain from it? It is a very strange and unhealthy pastime, and very baffling.
Occasionally, if you recall, some of the give away their rationale. They think that by commenting against us, they will “save” visitors from our “heresy.” Happily, I’ve got ample evidence that their tactics have backfired big time. Far from convincing readers that we are wrong, they have been convinced that we are in the right!
So, let them have their fun. They’re losing, and in so doing, are helping us achieve our educational goal – that’s the main thing!
Comments are closed.