It is really difficult to come to such a conclusion, with all PF has said and done (this article gives a brief reminder of his words and actions -https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/2016-the-year-pope-francis-finally-showed-his-hand).
It was not difficult to come to that conclusion.......... because the only other alternative is that the Holy Father's errors are intentional and this means, at the very least he is in material heresy! I will concede I cannot offer proof that the Holy Father has been decieved nor can I prove that he is not a heretic, in fact most of the evidence so far, point to the opposite and you are correct. However I hope (possibly naively hope) and pray that Our Dear Holy Father will awaken from his coma and answer the dubia. This gives me hope! Hope for the Church, Hope for my children , hope for my grandchildren, hope for marriage, hope for society And I will continue to pray for Our Holy Father, May God strengthen Our Holy Father to do this. Amen!
Despite what some say -- there is deep confusion in the Church -- from top to bottom. Not only confusion but cardinal vs cardinal - we have been warned in prophecy and it is here, now! All I can say is --- Keep praying the Rosary, go to confession & receive the Lord as worthily as possible. Make reparation for the times we have offended God. We are all sinners in needs of God's mercy. But focus on your own salvation. Live by your conscience in union with the teachings of the Church. Should all collapse around us then we will still be in union with God and destined for the glories of heaven.
More scum bubbles continue to surface and are outing themselves........please see article below. I've been wondering whether you, MS7, believe that the Holy Father has deliberately worded the AL, especially in paragraphs 302 through to paragraph 305 and footnote 351, specifically, so the scum bubbles would expose themselves for what they are, and as you put it..........rise to the surface? And if so......... how will the Holy Father distance himself from these words in the AL after all the scum bubbles surface? And what do you think would be the appropriate thing for Our Holy Father to do, to rid the Church of these scum bubbles? Do you think he has a way to do this! and remain safe? If you feel that the Holy Father may not be safe in ridding the Church of these scum bubbles, (by calling them out for what they are) ...........do you think that answering the dubia would be a blessing in disguise for Our Holy Father; giving Our Holy Father a much needed escape clause so to speak, in all of the above? Malta’s bishops tell the remarried: take Communion if you feel at peace with God by Dan Hitchens posted Friday, 13 Jan 2017 Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta (CNS) The bishops say that avoiding sex may be 'humanly impossible' Malta’s bishops have said that remarried people should receive Communion if they think they are at peace with God. In a new document, Criteria for the Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia, the bishops say that if “a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are [sic] at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist”. St John Paul II and Benedict XVI reaffirmed the Church’s perennial teaching that divorced and remarried Catholics cannot receive Communion, except possibly when they endeavour to live “as brother and sister”. However, the Maltese bishops say that avoiding sex with a new partner may be “impossible”. The new document underlines divisions among the world’s bishops over the Church’s traditional teaching. Since Amoris Laetitia was published in April, the bishops of Poland and Costa Rica, several North American bishops, and others, have reiterated the traditional teaching, while others have diverged from it. In November, the diocese of San Diego said that remarried Catholics may “conclude that God is calling them to return to full participation in the life of the Church and the Eucharist.” Earlier this week Cardinal Raymond Burke said that, if the San Diego interpretation were to become universal, “then the Church’s teaching on marriage is finished.” The Maltese bishops claim that Amoris Laetitia encourages a new practice because of footnote 351. This, in reference to the integration of people in “irregular situations”, says: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.” Although Pope Francis has said he cannot remember this footnote, it has provoked much debate. Some have argued that it reaffirms John Paul’s teaching in Familiaris Consortio: “Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. “This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.’” However, the Maltese bishops say that couples should instead “examine the possibility of conjugal continence”. The bishops refer to “complex situations where the choice of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ becomes humanly impossible”. Four cardinals, including Cardinal Burke, have asked Pope Francis to clarify that Amoris Laetitia does not encourage divergence from the Church’s traditional teaching. One, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, has said: “Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and the reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.”
Yes I know you Janet but not directly, by memory via Joe only, anyway I could be wrong as well, thanks.
http://ericsammons.com/go-and-sin-some-more-the-bishops-of-malta-endorse-adultery/ Go and Sin Some More: The Bishops of Malta Endorse Adultery January 14, 2017 Blog The bishops of Malta have issued a document titled “Criteria for the Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris Lætitia.” For those who haven’t been paying attention, Chapter 8 of AL deals with whether divorced and remarried Catholics should be able to receive Communion – an issue that has been transformed into the most pressing issue of the day in recent years. Dr. Ed Peters rightly calls the document a “disaster.” A few quick thoughts of my own: The conclusion reached by the document – that divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Communion as long as they are “at peace with God” (par. 10) – should surprise no one. This has been the end game ever since Cardinal Kasper gave his infamous address almost three years ago to the Roman Curia introducing the “Kasper Proposal.” This was not the Church listening to the Holy Spirit and going wherever He leads. It was planned from the beginning, and this was the conclusion that was to be reached, no matter the opposition. Like all those who have been pushing for this change, the Maltese bishops use the language of “ideal,” “discernment,” and “complex situations.” But we all know the bottom line: this transforms the Catholic policy on communion to essentially the same as that of most mainline Protestant denominations, i.e. open communion. For if feeling that one is at “peace with God” is the primary criteria for receiving Communion, what precludes anyone from receiving? The image on the cover of the document – Our Lord encountering the woman caught in adultery – is the height of irony, although I’m sure the Maltese bishops don’t realize it. After all, after Christ had dispersed the crowd, he told the woman, “Go and sin no more.” The bishops, in effect, are telling men and women in a similar circumstance, “Go and sin some more.” The priests of Malta – and anywhere such a policy is implemented – have a decision to make. Will they obey their bishops, or will they obey the Lord? I don’t envy them, and we should all pray that our priests remain faithful to the Lord’s commands, even if it means opposition to their bishops. The Maltese bishops speak of living in continence as an “ideal” that is “humanly impossible” for some (par. 9). Yet the bishops themselves are required to live in complete continence. This tells me one of two things: either they believe they are superior to these couples, or they themselves don’t live up to the “ideal.” So the bishops are either arrogant or immoral. St. John Chrysostom famously said that the “road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” It looks like the road is about to be repaved.
One has to wonder what Pope Benedict is now thinking now that Bishops are coming out against the dogma of the indissolubility of marriage, because of Pope Francis document doing just what he suggested? Surely he is seeing his prophecy on the "Church becoming very small", is now coming to fruition. The Malta Bishops position will now spiral globally and few will hold to what Jesus explicitly taught on divorce and remarriage. I am grateful Father John Hardon drilled in to me years ago, that truth cannot change or I may be as confused as others. Pray, pray, pray.
Could it be that the Holy Father is of the opinion that the Church has been wrong to place restrictions on who may receive the Blessed Eucharist? St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians addresses a range of issues, including matters such as divorce, sexual immorality, judging others, and how Christians should deal with fellow Christians whose behaviour isn't in line with the Gospel: Here's what St. Paul says about the Eucharist: http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11 23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. Perhaps the Pope agrees with what the Bishops in Malta appear to be saying - that it's up to each individual to examine his own conscience and decide whether to receive Communion? St. Paul makes no mention in the above passage about being in the state of grace. His concern appears to be that we shouldn't approach the altar unless we truly believe in the Real Presence, and nobody can know that except the individual and God. I suppose that would be the Protestant, Sola Scriptura approach to what St. Paul means. Then again, earlier in the same epistle, St. Paul says this, which suggests that Communion for the divorced and remarried wouldn't be an issue because any Christian living in an objectively adulterous Union would have been excluded from Church gatherings: http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/5 1 It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. 3 I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed, 4 in the name of [our] Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. 6 Your boasting is not appropriate. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough? 7 Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.e 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, 10 not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. 11 But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person 12 For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? 13 God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst". I suspect that St. Paul wouldn't last long in today's seminaries, never mind make it to Bishop or Cardinal. Nevertheless, could the Bishops of Malta, Bishop Elbe, other very liberal Bishops (and presumably the Pope if he makes no effort to tell them that their interpretation of AL is incorrect) be right in leaving it up to each individual to discern whether to receive Communion? If the answer is "yes", it means that the Magisterium of the Church has been wrong until Pope Francis wrote Amoris Laetitia, which gives rise to some other very awkward questions.
Then again, St. Paul, unlike Pope Francis, did not have 2000 years of constant clarification of what the Church Fathers, Church Popes, Church councils, Church documents, Church Catechism's have said/written to clarify what Christ taught on the indissolubility of marriage and that "personal conscience" must be formed in these truth's before one can use truly assess and "be at peace with God" as ones guide.
That's correct. St. Paul didn't have any of those advantages. He got knocked off his horse by God. He might have held on to his head and died in his bed had his enlightenment been as gradual and learned as some of our Bishops. That said, my question was a serious one. Could it be that by leaving it to individuals to decide for themselves whether they should receive the Eucharist, the Pope is merely following what St. Paul said and is actually closer to that teaching than so many of his predecessors? Has the Church been wrong to impose restrictions? (I'm trying to reconcile what's happening now with what has always been practised).
Um, no, the Church has not been wrong to impose restrictions. Christ condemned adultery. Period. No fantasy. No wiggle room. That is why the Church has set up tribunals of canon lawyer priests to examine marriages and see if they are valid or not. If the marriage is not valid, then Catholics are free to remarry. And after remarrying in the Church, they can receive the Eucharist. A separated or divorced Catholic can receive the Eucharist UNLESS they are in a sexual relationship, which would be sinful. Mortal sin. Not mincing words. Period. I know this because I went through this and it was not easy. But the safety of the Lord and His Church comforted me. God help those who try to do this alone. And I arrived safely precisely because the Church's teachings were in place.
What you are asking is whether personal conscience, not based on what Christ and his Church has explicitly taught, but on feelings, is right thinking? 1) St. Paul did not possess the gift of infallibility apart from Peter. This is reserved to "Peter" and the constant teachings of the bishops united to him. 2) If you can show where the Church has ever wavered on its constant teachings on the indissolubility of marriage, please provide. 3) If Pope Francis is right in his new theology, is it then okay for those practicing sodomy, masturbation, fornication or pornography to now to leave it up to individual conscience as well? Cause there is a whole lot more Christians practicing these deadly sins then that of divorce and remarriage. Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. INFALLIBILITY, EPISCOPAL. Preservation from error of the bishops of the Catholic Church. They are infallible when all the bishops of the Church are assembled in a general council or, scattered over the earth, they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. They are assured freedom from error provided they are in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority. The scope of this infallibility, like that of the Pope, includes not only revealed truths but any teaching, even historical facts, principles of philosophy, or norms of the natural law that are in any way connected with divine revelation. INDISSOLUBILITY. The permanence of marriage which cannot be dissolved either by the withdrawal of consent of the married partners or by civil authorities. Christian marriage is absolutely indissoluble, as defined by the Council of Trent, condemning anyone who says, "The Church errs when she has inculcated and continues to inculcate in accord with evangelical and apostolic teaching, that the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one spouse, and that both parties, even the innocent one who gave no reason for adultery, cannot contract a new marriage while the other spouse is alive; and that both the man who marries another wife after dismissing an adulterous one commits adultery and the wife who marries another husband after dismissing an adulterous one commits adultery" (Denzinger 1807). INDISSOLUBLE MARRIAGE. Christian marriage, between two baptized persons who enter into a valid contract and consummate their marriage by natural intercourse, cannot be dissolved by any human power, whether civil or ecclesiastical.
One observation from my earlier post that I failed to make is St. John Paul II's clear connection between the commandments and love, as seen in the paragraph above. Today it is argued that love enables us to go beyond a dangerous rigidity of only considering the commandments apart from the difficult realities of life. But above, St. John Paul II emphasizes that the commandments lead us, by the grace of Christ, on the path of that fullness of life proper to the children of God. John 14: 21 He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him."
This is obviously the agenda of the pope. Anyone still clinging to the desperate notion that the pope is just drawing out the heretics so he knows who to discipline is making Catholics look like credulous and gullible fools. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b...suggest-pope-francis-support-for-communion-fo Vatican newspaper publishes Maltese bishops’ guidelines endorsing Communion for ‘remarried’ Shutterstock.com , Fri Jan 13, 2017 - 7:45 pm EST amoris laetitia , communion , communion for remarried , l'osservatore romano , malta , pope francis ROME, January 13, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The official Vatican newspaper has published new guidelines from Malta’s bishops that open that door for divorced and "remarried" Catholics “who are peace with God” to receive the Sacraments - a move that the Associated Press speculated could be intended to signal Pope Francis' support for the guidelines. The bishops in the Archdiocese of Malta and the Diocese of Gozo issued guidelines on Friday permitting access to the Eucharist for Catholics living in objective sin who “with an informed and enlightened conscience ... acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God.” The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published the guidelines in full in its January 14 edition. The guidelines are some of the most liberal interpretation of the pope’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) to date. In addition to allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in their dioceses to receive Communion if they are “at peace with God,” the Maltese bishops said it might be “humanly impossible” for Catholics to abstain from marital relations when civilly remarried. In his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, Pope St. John Paul II had said that "remarried" Catholics who wish to receive the Sacraments but who cannot separate for serious reasons could live together as "brother and sister" - i.e. without engaging in sexual relations. Since its April release, Pope Francis’ controversial exhortation has divided Catholics in the clergy and the pews via the ambiguity in several passages that tacitly create access to Holy Communion for Catholics living in objective sin. Bishops in different parts of the world have opted to interpret and implement AL in varying ways that has created confusion. Some say giving Communion to Catholics in adulterous or other “irregular” unions is “pastoral” and a way of accompanying” them. At the same time, others recognize that Church teaching is timeless and unchangeable. The apparent leveling of Church principles regarding marriage and the Eucharist resulting from the ambiguity in AL prompted the dubia from the four cardinals, Raymond Burke, Walter Brandmüller, Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner. It submitted in November to Pope Francis for clarification on Amoris Laetitia. At least two Maltese bishops have communicated support for the liberal and dissident implementation of AL by their Twitter posts. Bishop Mario Grech retweeted papal confidant and “mouthpiece” Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro’s scornful take on the criticism of AL in the December 4 edition of CRUX, as well as Italian theologian Rocco Buttigione’s sympathetic stance on the document. Archbishop Charles Scicluna has retweeted Father Spadaro as well, along with the dissenting National Catholic Reporter article, and other reports that are critical of the dubia. The Maltese bishops also seem to presume some single, divorced, and same-sex attracted Catholics are incapable of abstaining from sex, stating in their new guidelines regarding conjugal continence that some couples may be able to do this, but “On the other hand, there are complex situations where the choice of living 'as brothers and sisters' becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329).” As Catholics worldwide still await a response from Pope Francis on the dubia, the Maltese bishops have instructed their parishes to read a letter this weekend at Sunday Mass detailing their new guidelines on interpreting Amoris Laetitia.
It just occurred to me today at mass to think, 'Well why worry about what the Pope and the Cardinals and so on are doing? After all you have you own Spiritual Life which you can still follow. The Church will provide you with mass every day, with confession every week why worry?? After all you are only a very ordinary Catholic lay person , not theologian. Why not just get on with your life and forget about all these things? Leave them all to it!' Well its a bit like this , even for purely selfish reasons I have found if you do not check out and face the trouble, sooner or later the trouble will come looking for you. It is like if I see a neighbours house on fire I have a duty to try and help somehow, even if its only lifting a telephone. The Church is on fire and so I have a duty to help too. So I'll keep doing my best. It would be very selfish of me not too. But I admit it is very tempting to roll over and not hear the alarm clock. Very, very tempting indeed.
Yes. That's what I was taught and have always believed. Clearly, there are priests and Bishops (with the Pope's approval) teaching something different. What I'm trying to do here is figure out how so many Bishops and the Pope have jettisoned that teaching. Since we have to give them the benefit of the doubt, we have to try to figure out whether there are grounds for this U-turn. Anyone with a smidgin of wit can see that the "development of Doctrine" argument is a load of nonsense. Now that we are spared Smudger's trotting out that same failed argument over and over, and David's "AL is a beautiful document" perhaps we can explore whether there are any valid grounds for this reversal of Church teaching on three, perhaps four, of the seven Sacraments of the Church. At least Bishop Elbe was honest in calling it a change in Doctrine whether or not it's in a footnote. I would have expected the Open Communion approach from Bishops in Belgium, Germany, Holland and Austria, but not from Malta.
They know their time is short, so they're ramping up their agenda: http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.com/2017/01/breaking-upcoming-vatican-2018-synod-on.html BREAKING: Upcoming Vatican 2018 Synod on Youth to combat "rigidity" in the Church The ongoing war against doctrine coming from the churchmen in the Vatican (masquerading as fighting "rigidity"), will be ramped up in the upcoming 2018 Synod on Youth. This, according to Vatican Radio. Readers will notice that the "professional" lives of "youth" is mentioned first. A totally natural approach for a false horizontal Christianity that no longer believes in Hell. The way to Heaven is on the Cross, not money, a so-called career and "professional" life. Readers should note that Cardinal Lorenzo "Fingers" Baldisseri (the "book thief", and notorious piano player) is organizing this Synod, just as he organized the scandalous Synod of the Family. In all of this we should remember that Christ is still in absolute control of His Church. We have the Pope and churchmen we need. WHat is it we need? We need to be punished severely for the grave sins of Catholics. God writes straight with crooked lines. We should never forget that God is far, far greater than mere men, including Popes. No man, including a Pope can ever destroy the Church. From Vatican Radio: A Church which is less rigid, more welcoming, and open to discussions, debates and encounters. They want Church leaders who are willing to spend time listening to the experiences of young people, making them “privileged interlocutors” of a Church which is open and engaged in dialogue with the young generations. That’s the ambitious goal at the heart of the next Synod of Bishops, focused on the choices that young people make in all walks of their professional, spiritual and personal lives. The full report may be read here.
Regarding the Doctrine of Infallibility (see the text in your post that I have underlined and coloured in blue), does it trump all other Church teaching? For example, can a Pope and some or all Bishops in union with him declare that Jesus wasn't divine after all? That's an extreme example, but if they can teach infallibility on anything previously held to be true and part of Divine Revelation, is there a limit to that infallibility? I thought that infallibility didn't stretch to changing what had always been held to be true at all times and everywhere. Perhaps I was wrong about that.
