Another Pharisee post. Is that the best you can come up with? We are sick on this forum of people coming on board accusing others of being Pharisees. To use a cliche -- who are you to judge? And since when was marriage a man made law?
So much to explain on this post. jjg27 is no doubt a well meaning person who is thinking with his feelings and not sound doctrine like so many others. Feelings is not how we discern the 10 commandments. "The Pope is preaching leniency". Most in the Catholic faith are at a elementary school level of faith teachings today. Those who are not (clergy and religious) will be held even more culpable on judgement day, for they knew different). Even the Pope has no authority whatsoever to change church doctrine, as it is comes from God himself and not man. The 6th commandment is "though shall not commit adultery". Anyone who uses feeling for those who were married in God's eye and divorces his spouse and remarries another and has sexual relations within the 2nd marriage is breaking God's commandment of adultery and is in grave sin. Feelings/false compassion does not trump truth. Man, even the pope, cannot change what God has commanded based on feelings. Just ask St. John the Baptist, St. Thomas Moore or St. Bishop John Fischer who are lost their heads in defense of God's teaching on divorce and remarriage. Those Pharisees, like Pope Francis, who argue against this 6th commandment, sound just like the accusers of these saintly martyrs prior to them being executed. "Jesus reached out to the outcasts of society in his day. Pope Francis is doing the same in the modern day". Yes he did. And when he found these sinners he addressed their sin against God to them and said, "go and sin no more". Pope Francis is saying the opposite. First he cannot even teach what Jesus himself taught on adultery "no adulterer shall enter the kingdom of heaven". Second he is in grave error thinking he has the authority to usurp God's commandment with feelings. It is not compassion, but to the contrary an opposition to God's truth to allow a man or woman to remain in grave sin, as if their continual sexual pleasure will somehow give them relief in the eternal fires of hell that scripture attests to. Would you deny it to those who need it most, and seek God in foregivesness and humility? YES! It is an eternal truth that one cannot be in grave sin and receive the body and blood of Jesus. Adultery is grave sin no matter what ones feelings are!! Read your bible. Read your Catholic Catechism. Read the writings of all past popes, especially St. Pope John Paul who wrote explicitly on this in his encyclical on the family. The Bible says receiving the Lord in communion requires self reflection. Yes, one should always examine ones conscience. However, the conscience must be examined in the light of God's teachings on adultery and not in the light of Hollywood and TV shows. Pope Francis has every right to examine the the man-made rules of the Church. What?? Surely you are kidding? Pope Francis has no authority to change God's law's. Surely you have enough bible study to have been taught the 6th commandment of God through Moses? Surely you have heard what Jesus said on adultery when asked what is truth in this regard. Luke 16: [14] Now the Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. [15] And he said to them: You are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is high to men, is an abomination before God. [16] The law and the prophets were until John; from that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every one useth violence towards it. [17] And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fall. [18] Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery. I will continue to pray for all that are confused and cannot see that God's truth cannot change. But first, read you bible. Read what the unchanging truth of God's is in this regard in the Catholic Catechism and documents of the Church. Read on what can and cannot change in the church (church doctrine which comes form God and can never change and Church discipline which comes form man, (the pope and bishops united to him which can change) and then if you have a sincere heart of truth you will see that adultery is a grave sin that no man, no matter how he feels can change God's law.
Spooky. A another revolving IP address, I have banned this person. The devil is very,very active with this stuff. The tone and content at once gave me cause for concern. Please be aware
Somehow this point seems worth highlighting/discussing. The Pope's encyclical involves a change in the rules accompanying the reception of Holy Communion. Those rules are, of course, man made rules The problem comes with the interpretation of what the Pope's change in the encyclical means with respect to basic doctrine. It is that disagreement on the significance, with respect to doctrine, of the rule update that is causing the conflict. Those who support Pope Francis believe that where such disagreement takes place, it is the Holy Father's role and privilege to be the final arbiter.
Reminds me of the same trajectory in the secular world. LGBT (alphabet soup) just wanted to be free. No one could imagine someone going to jail for not wanting to be part of their "freedom" and oh the promises...religious freedom will be respected"...uh, huh. And then the axe began to fall. They didn't want freedom to be who they are it would seem, but force others to accept "who they are" regardless of religious laws, beliefs, creeds etc. Perhaps encapsulated best by HRC's bald statement "the Church will be made to change." Once a heterodox idea enters in and is given an inch it will take much more than a mile. And I would say Brian and Mac have a keen sense of discernment.
Same with abortion or Euthanasia. Foot through the door and you end up with a herd of elephants in your living room
If he really said this and does not recant it, this is certainly heresy. Was Jesus kidding when He talked about the lake of fire. Did the Fatima children hallucinate. Did the Blessed Mother deceive when she said "you have seen hell where poor sinners go"---I am past being aghast. I am into a whole new zone of dire apprehension.
Thanks Padraig. Isn't it sad that we have to put up our radar every time someone tells us we have to be merciful. that beautiful and holy attribute of God, expressed in the Passion and Death of Jesus. To twist its meaning. That is surely diabolical.
Dolours....my post inaccurately reference this lightening strike when PF was elected. It was when PB resigned or went into retirement. Still in all, it IMHO looks to be a sign of what was to come.
It happened again on October 7th 2016. Both this day and the day of Pope Benedict's resignation were Marian Feast Days. If I remember correctly something of note happened around October 7th 2016 but I don't remember what. http://aleteia.org/2016/10/07/light...-basilica-on-feast-of-our-lady-of-the-rosary/[/QUOTE] Oct. 7th is the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary! It commemorates the battle of Lepanto that saved Christian Europe from Islam.
Thank you AED, I still hope we are wrong....but the Vatican refuses to answer its critics other than to say, "I like criticism "....PF Rather than say you are ok with critics, why not address their questions/ complaints ? That's dismissive and indicates to me at least rather than justify the complaints, he's happy to ignore them and proceed to do what he wants regardless of the consequences or scandal it has created.....without apology. When a father sees his house devided, it is his duty to address and resolve issues. He does not say he is ok with it. A house divided falls....Our church as with any other house could do the same. Not that the gates of hell will prevail, but it will be made small....IMHO.
The Pope's encyclical involves a change in the rules accompanying the reception of Holy Communion. Those rules are, of course, man made rules. Rules for what? Rules for those in adultery to receive the body and blood of Jesus? Do you know what you are saying hear? The problem comes with the interpretation of what the Pope's change in the encyclical means with respect to basic doctrine. Basic doctrine is that any man or woman who divorces their spouse and marries another commits adultery. Pope Francis wants to award the divorce and remarried in mortal sin the body and blood of Jesus, which is an abomination. It is that disagreement on the significance, with respect to doctrine, of the rule update that is causing the conflict. Those who support Pope Francis believe that where such disagreement takes place, it is the Holy Father's role and privilege to be the final arbiter. The Pope has no authority to give those in grave sin the body and blood of Jesus. The church is clear that you may not receive communion in the state of mortal sin, which adultery is. Now if you receive an annulment, which acknowledges there was no first marriage in God's eye then yes receive as often as possible. I have to say, this slippery language of Pope Francis reminds me of the snake tempting Adam and Eve with half truth. Apparently, most will fall for his sly words that of course will slide right by the average practicing Catholic and is already accepted by the Protestant world and the pagan world. Adultery of course is the way of the world now. Who are we to judge what God has spoken, they say!! In the petitions today at mass, the deacon had one petition on the "rigidity of keeping the laws and rules". Of course our social justice pastor did not come close to touching the Gospel on adultery in today's readings, but he did get his dig in on them in his petitions. Yup, I know how Pope Francis teaches/thinks, because I have had 30 years of it at my own parish. A lot of fluff with little truth and a dab of poison.
It is a clear contradiction of 2000 years of Church teaching. How can a practice founded in Sacred Scripture be overturned? You would have us believe that the Holy Spirit has done an about face within a couple of decades, making possible what was impossible for 2000 years just because we have a Pope who doesn't believe what has always been taught? It doesn't pass the smell test. Here's how Cardinal Ratzinger, with Pope John Paul's approval, spelled it out in 1994: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...oc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html
From Nick Donnelly, a reliable source: "Also hearing persistent rumours that Card. Muller has resigned from CDF & Card. Burke has been cancelling engagements. No confirmation" I wonder if this has anything to do with the Pope's proposal for a new Mass translation. This will, I strongly suspect again replace the words 'for all' instead of 'for many' in the Mass to further the case for universalism (the 'all are saved' notion - apart from those, of course, who are merely 'annihilated' according to Scalfari's quote from the Pope re. the fate of non-believers).
It's that hideous wobble word "nuance"--slippery personified--when you hear "nuance", run very fast. Grab your Rosary and your Bible and run. The 1970's are calling. Don't answer.
I'm not so sure, Padraig, that this won't be permitted to drag on for a very long time. Maybe there will be direct intervention if the words of consecration are changed, but I think it more likely that they will change everything else and leave the actual consecration to their successors. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I cling to the hope and belief that Pope Francis isn't a complete apostate and that his friends will be happy enough to see him promote their protegees knowing that the agenda will be furthered by his successor and fully implemented down the line. His successor will have it easy because Pope Francis has already set the precedent of contradicting a recent Pope and divorcing pastoral practice from Doctrine founded in Sacred Scripture and Tradition (two fundamentals of the Magisterium). Selling a change in the consecration shouldn't be too difficult when it's spun as vital to Christian unity enabled by Vatican 11, initiated by Pope John Paul, advanced by Pope Benedict and brought to fruition by inter-Communion under Pope Francis. Changing the Consecration would be merely another development to people who consider Communion to be little more than a symbol of Christian fellowship. It's hard to tell, however, whether they will go first for the low hanging fruit like gay marriage, contraception, pro-choice on abortion and euthanasia, and Church blessings of adulterous unions before the ultimate prize of the Consecration. There could be a few more Francis-style papacies before those prophecies are fulfilled.
