But to , 'Sleep in the Bosom of Satan'.. to follow any Pope right or wrong? That sounds pretty well shut up and put up? ..and you did reply to this quote 'Thank God and thank St Catherine'? T
No, sorry No, ; 'Bosom of Satan', for me. Thanks very much for the offer. But no. If that makes me a bad person. Not to go along with Pope Francis. He's totally totally ,wicked I respect his office. He' still the Pope. I have to put up with it. But the guys a total, total evil monster We're stuck with him; I don't have to like it. But no. I prefer not to rest on the bosom of Satan. The answer is a big no. I put up with him. He's Pope. I admit that. He has the authority. Pope Galatians 2:11-13 New Living Translation (NLT) Paul Confronts Peter 11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. Francis totally totally killing me. But that's as far as it goes. He' totally, totally killing me.
I SAID NOT LITERAL. And I do thank God and St. Catherine, because it means to me that we respect the office of Peter whether he is holy or not. End of my discussion. You do not have to sleep in the bosom of Satan, so don't fret.
Please do keep parrying about it. I have fallen into doubt a number of times over this issue and its great that on this forum that people discuss these things to help bring clarity back to those who have fallen back into confusion. Thanks for the explanation you gave. Just to clarify, I have no intention of leaving the church, but I do sometimes get confused on whether we accept or reject the authority of someone who might be a heretic. I understand that we should recognise and resist but it is hard at times. Like for instance when I get into discussion with someone who says all religions are valid and should be respected, I try to explain the evil behind other religions, to which they respond with something along the lines of , well Pope Francis or such and such person says otherwise. I reply with, well in that case the pope or whoever it may be is a heretic and then they claim that by my act of claiming the pope is a heretic I am therefore rejecting the authority of the Pope and am therefore putting myself outside the church. This forum is really great the way everyone discusses and helps explain things to people instead of shutting people down. I have been removed from two Catholic groups in the past year. One for sharing a video on the amazon synod heresies and the other for saying that what the Pope done in the amazon synod pagan ritual was wrong. In both cases I was instantly removed without anyone trying to correct me or put me on the right path. In both cases I never intended to be seen as someone hateful or disrespectful to the pope but through the way I was instantly removed I can only guess they seen me as that way. I do sometimes get angry when I see the truth of God being attacked, but I try to tell myself to pray for the Pope and for him to be treated well even though it is hard sometimes. I think at the end of the day, we all want to get to heaven and its scary to think that though all our actions are based on trying to get there, one of those actions could be what places us in hell instead. Although I guess those thoughts are a waste of time ? Given that many saints say that if we truly love God and seek him that God will help us get there ? I truly hope that is the case for the 3 hermits. That although their actions might be wrong, if they truly love God then somehow God will help them to somehow come back into the church.
In my understanding you should not call the Pope a Heretic to do so is understood in a formal way and Pope Francis is not a formal Heretic. A pope could say something that is heretical and of course you would be right to point this out doing so would not put you outside the Church.
So that' alright then. He's not a formal heretic. He's simply a material heretic. So that's alright then. Has the world gone crazy? It's alright for the Pope to be a heretic so long as his heresy takes a particular form? Formal or material? That 's what the Dubia questions were all about. If Pope Francis was making formal or informal heresies. Material or imatrerial heresies. How much he stood over the heresies he stated. How formal or material it was. Does he do it by accident or on purpose? Repeated over and over again heresies, by accident or stupidity heresies (material) or by design (formal ..which means he knew what he was up to. )
Immaculate I think you in your above post were referring to Pope Francis statement in the Abu Dhabi doc about all religions being willed by God. Remember that doc is not majesterail and the statement is a case of material heresy.
My understanding is to be a formal Heretic you would have to be declared one by the Church. Pope Francis has not been declared one.
Anyway we're dealing with a very, very,very evil Pope Indeed. I would say totally, totally Satanic. As to how you deal with such a person it's up to you. But I would take this as a starting point. The guy's way out there. Totally Satanic. Totally evil. Of course the Vatican has, more the less gone the same way. There are still some hold outs. But they'll soon be taken care off.
I know what you mean. I should really be much more careful with the words I choose and speak. In my understanding, material heresy is making a mistake about something on the faith but you remain open to being corrected on it ? And formal heretic is when you hold fast to the error without being corrected on it. As in refusing to be corrected on it ?
https://forums.catholic.com/t/formal-heresy-and-material-heresy/393068/4 Hello there, My understanding of the two is as follows: Material Heresy is simply when one who holds the Christian faith but denies any article of the faith that has been defined and taught by the Catholic Church (dogma). For example, if you were to deny the Immaculate Conception, you would be in, at least, Material Heresy. Formal Heresy is when you willfully, and with knowledge and understanding, reject an article of the faith as taught and defined by the Catholic Church. Formal Heresy is far more severe because it is done with knowledge and understanding that the particular thing denied is taught by the Church and yet the position is held with obstinance. Basically, when Material Heresy is committed alone, it is usually a mistake done in innocence or ignorance, but Formal Heresy is malicious because it is done willfully and with intent. Examples: If a poorly catechized Catholic denies the existence of Purgatory, but does it through ignorance or misapprehension and with no intent to disobey the Church, he would be in Material Heresy, but not Formal Heresy (because he did not know that such a thing was heretical nor did he have intent to disobey the Church). Of course, he might be guilty of not bothering to learn his faith, but he would not be guilty of Formal Heresy. If he had known what the Church teaches about Purgatory, and yet insists that there is no Purgatory, then he is in Formal Heresy. A Catholic who knows and understands what the Church teaches about salvation and yet decides that salvation is by ‘faith alone’ and then subsequently leaves the Catholic Church, has committed Formal Heresy. If you had a Southern Baptist who was born and raised in his Protestant church with no knowledge that his church’s teachings were heretical, then he would be a material heretic, but not a formal heretic. If he, on the other hand, knew and understood that the Catholic Church teaches otherwise then he would be a formal heretic. If you had a Protestant that is a militant anti-Catholic that knows and understands what the Church teaches about Mary, for example, and yet willfully rejects those teachings, he is a Formal Heretic. It should also be noted that heresy differs from apostasy in that heresy is a denial of some points of the faith, but not all. Apostasy is a denial of the Christian faith entirely. One who left the Catholic Church and became a Muslim would not be a heretic, he would be an apostate. Also it should be noted that those that are separated from the Roman Pontiff, but yet, do not deny any article of the faith are schismatics (and are neither, necessarily, heretics or apostates). Heresy and apostasy are both sins against Faith and very grave. Schism is a sin against Charity and is also grave, but not as bad as the former two. Pax Domini sit semper tecum! Alenka Apr '15 “The Church expressly distinguishes between ‘formal’ and ‘material’ heretics. A ‘formal’ heretic rejects the Church and its teaching absolutely and with full deliberation; a ‘material’ heretic rejects the Church from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false prejudice or by an anti-Catholic upbringing. St. Augustine forbids us to blame a man for being a heretic because he was born of heretical parents, provided that he does not with obstinate self-assurance shut out all better knowledge, but seeks the truth simply and loyally. Whenever the Church has such honest enquirers before her, she remembers that our Lord condemned Pharisaism but not the individual Pharisee, that He held deep and loving intercourse with Nicodemus, and allowed Himself to be invited by Simon. The spirit of the Church in her dealings with souls may be stated in St. Augustine’s words: ‘Love men, slay error!’”
That's the other thing I was going to add. How can a man rise up through the Church to the level of Pope and somehow not come across basic teachings of the Church and make mistakes on the basics. How can a man go through seminary, be ordained, become a bishop, archbishop, cardinal and then become a Pope and then claim material heresy ? Even though we can't say it, we are all left thinking that he is a formal heretic.
Padraig would it not be the case that the church would have to pronounce a Pope a Heretic like a group of Cardinals doing so after he was warned a number of times and only then he becomes a formal heretic?
A formal Heretic is excommunicated is he not? If so he could not be pope. I mean this in a legal sense.
Immaculata, thank you for pointing out that our discussions bear fruit. And as AG pointed out, the document about all religions being willed by God is not part of the magisterium. You are right, confusing times. Just stay on the Barque. We are right here in it with you.
PF is a heretic no matter what whether is it material or formal etc. Sick of it re material or formal which isnt necessary (its all semantics). You see one when you heard PF's utterances. He doesnt give a damn cos he knows that he is UN sackable. The majority of Bishops and Cardinals are in silent mode as their silence implies consent or assent in that regards except for Bishop Schnider or others that i dont know. Stopped giving them money. Heard some gays are joining seminaries in droves as heterosexual sems were kicked out for not being in line with PF's thinking. There is new level playing field now cos divorcee or abortionist or freemason can receive holy communions the same as ourselves. level playing field brings in to another level as to where every religion have same god etc which reminds of Medjugorje's early message. That is the next step.
Thank you for saying this. This is the way it should be. I am really grateful for this forum that Padraig runs, because we, the faithful who are striving to do God’s Will, can voice our thoughts and discuss issues without being immediately bashed as heretics or Protestants. +
