No matter how many times it's discussed(In the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church), it'll always be proven that JesusChrist is God, and that in HIS Church he gave to Peter to lead until he comes back(no exceptions), He will always be God. Now show me where in the Nicene Creed it says that homosexuality is bad. Well, if homosexuality is discussed in a Council, the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Pontiff, The True Succesor of Peter, Pope Francis will bring us the antihomosexuality creed. Because the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, and not by that trash liar satan and his acolytes. And if you have time, go ahead and post that recent lie about Pope Francis promoting homosexuality, I have to go soon, but I can come back te monday to this thread to show you how the media lied about it, with evidence.
I'm interested in accuracy. You accuse people of being liars. The example you give does not justify your accusation. "The media" in this case was the person who had spoken to the Pope and went on to have further meetings with him. You used the plural "lies". Was that a mistake? If not, can you be more specific. Perhaps the sense of hostility arose when people were accused of lying. That's what prompted my post. If memory serves me, Padraig had already posted a link to an article by Robert Moynihan explaining that the Pope did not teach heresy. I would be interested to know how any Pope speaking to a man born and raised in Italy could manage to speak in terms that could possibly be misunderstood as to suggest that Jesus was not divine. Do you know what the Pope actually said to the journalist? If so, are you willing to share?
Petrus, I will enter this discussion about the example of homosexuality just once. It is a disorder to have a homosexual orientation, not a sin. The acting out of this disorder's inclination by engaging in sex with a person of the same gender, or fantasizing about doing so, is when sin occurs. Read Romans 1.
Hold on a minute, now. You sound like that Ivereigh bloke that accused those who favour the Latin Mass of being guilty of the unforgiveable sin. Now, you say that we have no knowledge of what Pope Francis has said in private to Cardinal Marx, while yourself claiming to know the fundamental reason for some 'resignation', which you neglect to specifically define, but which we might reasonably presume in the context is that of Pope Emeritus Benedict. Let's stick to the undeniable facts. You make some grave allegations and condemnations of those of us who question the good will of our pope. Maybe you might at least answer some questions. 1). Do you consider that a pope can commit sin? 2). Do you consider it reasonable that Pope Francis considers those who believe in the traditional teachings of the Church (not specifically 'Trads', but holders of orthodox belief) as 'rigid', while praising Emma Bonino as 'one of Italy's greats'? 3). Who does Pachamama, whom we know Pope Francis prayed in front of in the Vatican Gardens and who was placed in front of the altar during Pope Francis' Mass at St Peters, represent? According to the Catholic News Agency, Vatican officials, when questioned, denied that she represented the Virgin Mary. If Pachamama cannot, by some great stretch, be represented in that manner, what is it and what was Pope Francis doing apparently venerating it? What are ordinary people to think? Just shut up and obey? Should we also prostrate ourselves before Pachamama (and maybe her son/husband, Inti, too) as was done in the Vatican Gardens by at least one eminent Churchman? 4). Do you consider it okay to receive the Body and Blood of Christ while in a state of adultery? 5). Do you consider sodomy a grave sin?
The Divinity of Christ was famously debated in Arian times, but more famously the Pope did not take the lead in that instance. It was down to Athanasius, and the support of the ordinary, orthodox Catholics of his day, to save the Truth. How do you know with such certainty that Pope Francis is not another Liberius? If one pope can err, would it not be close to idolatry to assert that another one can't? The Nicene creed is a profession of faith, not moral theology. Nothing of sin is defined, except the doctrine of its forgiveness. Your question about 'homosexuality' is disingenuous and I suspect your confusion of the state and the sin is deliberate muddying of the waters, but you might clarify this by stating that sodomy is a grave sin. Liberius' error should be a warning that we cannot absolutely depend on Pope Francis, or any other pope, to prevent the discussion of homosexuality in a synod leading to a change in moral teaching. The pope's role is to defend existing doctrine and the non-toleration of such discussions on settled matter should be where he begins. Who was guiding Pope Liberius when he condemned Athanasius? When Pope Peter changed course following the intervention of St Paul, was he rejecting the Holy Spirit or did he reject that same spirit that led him to deny Our Lord three times? If Peter could have erred as pope, what is it about Pope Francis that rules this out in your mind-do you think him a little bit special? Do you think that Pope Francis and the Catholic Church are equivalent?
Perhaps you will find the National Catholic register more to your taste: This on Cardinal Hollerich's apparent heretical beliefs: https://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal-hollerich-and-the-destabilization-of-doctrine And this from Cardinal Muller who knows a thing or two about the Church in Germany: https://www.ncregister.com/intervie...-time-of-tribulation-and-psychological-terror
I read Cardinal Muller's statement. Truth, just Truth, without fear or favour is what he said. God bless him.
Yes, Cardinal Muller seems quite saintly to me. Nobody is better informed than him. It seems to me that faithful Bishops and priests most especially in Germany have been suffering a white martyrdom for years. Those influential laypersons in Germany are probably more like the Pharisees than the "rigid" Catholics who are today's whipping boys. It's the a-la-carte Catholics in Germany (and elsewhere) who act as though they occupy the seat of Moses. There's more than one way to strike a shepherd and scatter the sheep. Let's not forget that Satan first tried tempting Jesus. Jesus resisted temptation. Some shepherds don't, making them more useful to Satan alive than dead. People using the gates of hell line to excuse indulging sinful lifestyles in the name of mercy would do well to remember who Jesus praised as the greatest: John the Baptist who spent his time calling people to repent and be baptised and lost his head for defending marriage to the equivalent in that time of today's "I'm Catholic but" politicians. And when it comes to numbers, the evil Herod didn't have nearly as much blood on his hands as today's abortion supporting politicians. John might have kept his head and died in bed had he chosen the accompaniment path, but would Jesus have thought so highly of him? Somehow, I suspect that John saying "Good on ya, Herod, you're not quite married but you erected great buildings and helped the people when food was scarce so you're a true son of Abraham" wouldn't have won him accolades with Jesus. But maybe I'm wrong. No doubt if I am there'll be a pious post full of quotes mined from the Bible letting me know how wrong I am. I'm just grateful that our current shepherds weren't the ones who lived under Diocletian. Considering their fear of bad press and a virus, something tells me that, had they been the first Apostles, Italy would be the headquarters of one of those other religions willed by God. Anyway, there's no use dwelling on it because we can't fix it. I probably shouldn't have got involved in this thread. It's just that calling someone a liar without proof that he knowingly lied seems like calumny to me. Calumny, yet people don't seem to realise that claiming to be defending the papacy isn't a licence to sin.
Pope Francis didn't quite preach heresy, in my opinion. He just went as close to the edge as he could. He shouldn't be doing that with what is probably the greatest heresy of all, Universalism, and which is rampant among ill-cathechised believers. I don't have any problems with Bishop Barron-he's not strictly a Universalist, as to hope implies that there is a possibility that all might not be saved. The Fatima prayer proclaims a similar hope from a very high source, indeed. However, there are some who assert that nobody goes to Hell. Maybe, Pope Francis is not one of them. He has been reported as talking of annihilation for those who traditionally would have been considered Hell-bound. Frankly, (an only partially deliberate pun) I don't know what Pope Francis believes. I no longer use the ironic phrase 'is the pope a Catholic' in conversation anymore, although strictly he has to be, but one expects higher and more unambiguous standards. If Universalism were true, we on this forum would only be fools. The sanest behaviour would be 'do as you will', get as much pleasure as you can in this life and look forward to continuing it in the next. We'd be like the Islamists, anticipating countless virgins. Of course, the Crucifixion would be meaningless, the Incarnation pointless. God would stand accused of imposing needless suffering on Creation, when He could just have put us in 'Heaven' in the first place. Good behaviour in preparation for 'Heaven', when all the most vile sinners would get in anyway, would only be for eejits.
Cardinal Muller gets it right on all accounts…especially his parting comments: Church leaders and lay Catholics pushing these anti-Catholic views do not believe in the Last Judgment, Cardinal Müller contended. “To them, God has to justify himself.” But he warned that their judgment will be harsher, given that they have apostatized. “As an apostate, that person has more guilt than someone who has never heard of the Catholic faith.”
It struck me today that the progressive Catholics despise the orthodox ones partly because of their condescending disdain at our foolishness in trying to obey the Law, but mostly because it feeds the haunting suspicion, which they desperately try and suppress, that they might be wrong. Death must be absolutely terrifying for them.
Yes, the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. God is just and the One who judges justly. Those prelates who place their opinions above the Moral Code have been duped. Dear Jesus, command your guardian angels to speak your Truth to the hearts of all heretics, apostates, and those enmeshed in repetitive sin. May each of us be more bold in sharing your Truth with the blinded, that they may yet repent. Make me more bold, Lord, in pointing out to others the price you paid on the Cross out of love for them. Our gaze must be fixed on You who loves us without measure! Lord have Mercy!
I'm interested in accuracy. What? I'm interested in accuracy. What??? I'm interested in accuracy. Whaaaat??? Well, give me at least the benefit of the doubt, since from the start you haven't shown the single little bit of interest in accuracy when an article lies about our(yours and mine) Pope Francis. So I don't belive you are interested in accuracy. "The media" in this case was the person who had spoken to the Pope and went on to have further meetings with him. Then why the title said “Francis”, not the other person? You accuse people of being liars. Falsehoods are lies. False titles, false claims, false accusations, calumny, etc. Romans 1, 28-31 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Deceit, gossips, slander, (specially in disobedience to their Holy Authority). Most of these fall on the eight commandment based on our catechism. “The Eighth Commandment, Thou shalt not bear false witness, forbids false testimony in a court of justice, and it also forbids backbiting, detraction, calumny, adulation, rash judgment and rash suspicion and every sort of lying.” All of these false controversies that cannot be proven and stories of fantasy in which the Pope is an evil mastermind trying to destroy the church and persecute himself could be called with the term fake news, but I prefer to just call it lie, as a way to remind myself and any catholics that have fallen for that crap that it's indeed a sin to believe and spread spurious rumors, and it's even worse when the victim of these is no other than the Holy Pontiff. I would be interested to know how any Pope speaking to a man born and raised in Italy could manage to speak in terms that could possibly be misunderstood as to suggest that Jesus was not divine. Do you know what the Pope actually said to the journalist? If so, are you willing to share? So guilty until proven innocent? Anything is possible with liars who admit themselves that what they say is innacurate. Publishing something you yourself admit can be false, but make it pass as undeniable truth just because you say so is a misleading, gossiping or slandering fault against the eight commandment. So it counts as a lie. Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. -”The Pope did X heresy” -”proof?” -”dude trust me” -”nah” -”then prove I am lying!” -”...again?”
Take this as an obvious joke; you admit you are not going to respond. So I will only tell you(in case you still want to read it) that the quote you're replying to never once used the word "sin".
Those are not undeniable facts but false premises. If it was undeniable you could at least prove your claims, not shows baseless rumors. But I still replied to those false premises. See page 3, read my posts. If you don't read my posts and still ask me to answer again you are only proving (proverbs 23, 9) right.
How do you know with such certainty that Pope Francis is not another Liberius? Why are all of your questions based on false premises? Tell me where I said that Pope Francis cannot be like Liberius. Your question about 'homosexuality' is disingenuous and I suspect your confusion of the state and the sin is deliberate muddying of the waters, but you might clarify this by stating that sodomy is a grave sin False premise again. I used the word homosexuality because Luan Ribeiro used the word homosexuality; and I asked him where it said in the Nicene Creed that it was bad, to prove him that it wasn't even discussed back then. Either way, I don't want to talk about me, let's move on to talk respectfully about the True Faith, and the True Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis. Liberius' error should be a warning that we cannot absolutely depend on Pope Francis, or any other pope, (….) Who was guiding Pope Liberius when he condemned Athanasius? And of course, one last false premise. First prove to me that Pope Liberius condemned Athanasius, go on you have my attention. Because if we don't agree on that premise the question in itself is null. This is a debate that has not be settled for centuries and you already have it figured out? There's never been proven that Pope Liberius excommunicated St. Athanasius. He publicly supported Athanasius in the presence of the emperor Constantius. (source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm) "Who are you", adds Constantius, "to stand up for Athanasius against the world?" Liberius replies: "Of old there were found but three to resist the mandate of the king." The eunuch Eusebius cried: "You compare the emperor to Nabuchodonosor." Liberius: "No, but you condemn the innocent." He demands that all shall subscribe the Nicene formula, then the exiles must be restored, and all the bishops must assemble at Alexandria to give Athanasius a fair trial on the spot. Constantius: "I am willing to send you back to Rome, if you will join the communion of the Church. Make peace, and sign the condemnation." Liberius: "I have already bidden farewell at Rome to the brethren. The laws of the Church are more important than residence in Rome." After this Pope Liberius was exiled, and this is where the issue with the false allegations occurs. Allegations that you believe from the very arians that were in heresy, who claim that Liberius did excommunicate Athanasius based on letters thought to be forgery. See: https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/athanasius-contra-mundum “The evidence is contradictory here, and depends heavily on whether or not you trust an Arian to tell the truth. ” “In the fragments of St. Hilary are embedded a number of letters of Liberius. Fragment IV contains a letter, "Studens paci", together with a very corrupt comment upon it by St. Hilary. The letter has usually been considered a forgery since Baronius (2nd ed.), and Duchesne expressed the common view when he said in his "Histoire ancienne de l'Église" (1907) that St. Hilary meant us to understand that it is spurious. ” “The aforesaid "Fragments" of St. Hilary have recently been scrutinized by Wilmart, and it appears that they belonged to two different books, the one written in 356 as an apology when the saint was sent into exile by the Synod of Béziers, and the other written soon after the council of Rimini for the instruction (says Rufinus) of the fallen bishops; it was entitled "Liber adversus Valentem et Ursacium". The letters of Liberius belonged to the latter work. Rufinus tells us that it was interpolated--he implies this of the whole edition--and that Hilary was accused at a council on the score of these corruptions; he denied them, but, on the book being fetched from his own lodging, they were found in it, and St. Hilary was expelled excommunicate from the council. ” The unproven condemnation of Pope Liberius has been used by protestants and history revisionists, like the centuriators of magdemburg, to keep insisting in denying the infallibility of the Pope. On this account, that quote of St. Alphonsus that has declared that any Pope who teaches heresy is no longer a Pope, is usually shown ommiting the fact that the Saint himself has defended this infallibility because said heresy has actually never been proven on any valid Pope(except in the minds of those youtube celebrities that some catholics so blindly follow with a zeal sometimes too greater than them); and thus implying his support for the case with Pope Liberius. So perhaps you are correct in claiming that Liberius is a warning for Francis, because right from back then, both were attacked by false rumors and slanders that antipapal catholics and protestants so easily believe to justify their schisms. And this story warns us not to believe any rumors so easily, lets we stray too long, and too easily from the Church our Lord founded in Peter. Galatians 1, 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— From the book “lives of the Saints” by Alban Butler “St. Athanasius [...] was the butt of every insult, calumny, and wrong the Arians could devise,“ So not only Pope Francis could be compared to Liberius, but also, because of the calumnies and insults he receives from liars, to Athanasius as well.
DeGaulle I will post one last thing quickly, a bit unrelated, I wanted to post it in the previous post, but I wouldn't know if it would fit. Just an example of the similarities in the lies and calumnies, between our Holy Pontiff, Pope Francis, and the Saint John Paul II when he was still shepherding the lambs of Christ. JPII ended his narrow thorny path with Sainthood, and every accusation he had to endure while he was on the seat of Peter must have become another gem for his crown of glory. I am so not sure when I will properly come back to you again(one, two, three days, or more I don't know(I came expecting to respond to Luan Ribeiro instead)), but be sure that I will check tomorrow for a few minutes to at least see what you have to say.
Petrus, I'm about to go to work and that's not a false premise. Before one announces from your position on high that a premise is false, perhaps you might explain why? All I read in your posts is evasion and an air of assumed authority extraordinary for someone who describes himself as evil. I'll be back in more detail. Again, that's not a false premise. One thing I'll point out is the false premise that just because 'homosexuality', which was regarded as solely defining an act rather than a state of being until very recent times, was not included in the doctrinal statement of the Creed does not 'prove' that it was not discussed back then.
I really hate throwing people off the forum. It jars with me. But on the other hand I have duty of care towards my fellow Catholics. To protect them from harm. So I'm tossing Petrus and the Tin guy. If you've being following their posts you can tell why. I have no idea why they think like they do, but that doesn't matter; they do think like they do. They are tossed.
