They will tell you he didn't change Canon Law.
They will tell you it is not magisterial teaching.
They will tell you that a letter to one bishop does not apply universally.
They will tell you he did not say this.
Well, the Irish certainly think he did.
It doesn't matter, they will say.
It does matter. Most Catholics will only read the headline. They will accept that and believe it. This man will lead people this very Sunday coming into sacrilege and mortal sin.
Who, in this world, will hold Bergoglio accountable for this horrendous action?
It is evil.
Now, if you are a Catholic who is divorced and remarried and has not received a Decree of Nullity and if you are not living as "brother and sister" in other words, if you are having sexual relations, do not go to Holy Communion. The Pope will lead you to Hell.
Yes, he most certainly will.
Thumbs up. bro.
In a dramatic move, Pope Francis has given the green light for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion under certain limited circumstances after they discuss the matter with their priest.
Even then, the couple most likely will have to receive Communion in private so as not to cause conflict or confusion among the rest of the congregation.
When the Pope published his Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (‘The Joy of Love’) earlier this year, much of the attention focussed on whether or not he had given permission for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion in some circumstances. Chapter eight of the document dealt with this but theologians disagreed about whether it gave such permission or not.
But now the Pope himself has cleared up the matter. Bishops in his native Argentina have published draft pastoral guidelines based on chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia in which they say that divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Communion under certain strict conditions. In a letter in response, Pope Francis has said that their interpretation of chapter eight is correct.
He stated in his letter: “The document is very good, and completely explains the meaning of chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”
The document, compiled by a group of Argentine Bishops, is called ‘Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia’.
It says that divorced and remarried Catholics ideally ought to abstain from sexual relations and live like ‘brother and sister’ if they wish to receive Communion.
However, where a couple won’t do this and there are circumstances that limit the responsibility or culpability of the divorced and remarried Catholic, then “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist”.
There might, for example, be a situation involving a Catholic who is married for a second time to someone who is not willing to cease sexual relations and if the Catholic spouse insisted that they live like ‘brother and sister’, the marriage would come to an end adversely affecting their children.
There are currently no plans by the Irish bishops to issue guidelines about chapter eight but the move by both the Argentine bishops and the Pope may lead to a rethink.
This is an inflammatory headline by the Irish Catholic. Is this what Bergoglio said? Well, it is certainly what he thinks, that we now know.
Still want to argue that Bergoglio is not a heretic?
24 comments:
Ah yes... "certain limited circumstances"... just like abortion, very rare, and so too soon, euthanasia, under an expert panel of course! Lots of accompaniment by a doctor walking beside them right up to the lethal dosage.
A quote someone here will never share with you -
"In principle, it was accepted by the synod," the pope said, according to Scalfari. "This is the basic result: the evaluations of the facts are entrusted to confessors, but at the end of the processes -- whether quick or slow -- all the divorced who ask for it will be admitted." "
- Cf. Reporter claims pope approves Communion for all remarried who ask | CNS and Fr. Lombardi: Latest Scalfari Article on Pope 'In No Way Reliable' | NCR
The Scalfari interviews are now published by the Vatican under orders from Pope Francis.
Or how about Kasper? I say we owe him some apologies...
" “I’m not naïve,” Kasper said. “I knew that there are other positions, but I didn’t think that the debate would become, and now is shown to be also, without manners.”
“Not one of my fellow Cardinals ever spoke to me. I, instead, [spoke] twice with the Holy Father. I agreed upon everything with him. He was in agreement. What can a cardinal do, except be with Pope? I am not the target, the target is another one.”
Kasper again claimed that Pope Francis knew what he was going to propose and fully approved of his speech.
“They know that I have not done these things by myself,” he said. “I agreed with the Pope, I spoke twice with him. He showed himself content [with the proposal]. Now, they create this controversy. A Cardinal must be close to the Pope, by his side. The Cardinals are the Pope’s cooperators.”"
Yep... egg on a lot of people's faces, especially amongst those who like make selective use of them to spin you another yarn not based in reality.
At this point, I won't be surprised if God strikes this wicked man dead any day now. We are nearly past the point of no return.
Game, Set and Match to Vox Cantoris!
Voox, has the following received attention in the Catholic press in Canada?
"Guidelines For the Pastoral Accompaniment of Christ’s Faithful Who Are Divorced and Remarried Without a Decree of Nullity
"These guidelines are to be situated within the respective pastoral plans for outreach to families in each of the Latin-rite Dioceses of Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
"These guidelines take effect September 14, 2016, Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.
"During the Jubilee of Mercy, the Universal Church received from Pope Francis his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. It conveys the beautiful invitation to encounter Jesus Christ, who pours out the Spirit of Love and Truth in the vast diversity of family life situations.
"One concern raised by Pope Francis as needing particularly careful and sensitive attention is the situation of those men and women who are divorced and have civilly remarried without having received a decree of nullity.
"The Holy Father insists that, “Priests have the duty to ‘accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop”’ Amoris Laetitia, 300).
"This Guide responds to the summons of the Holy Father by providing just such guidelines.
******* "It should be understood that it is informed by the entire Apostolic Exhortation, which itself reflects and upholds the Tradition of the Church." *******
******* "It may happen that, through media, friends, or family, couples have been led to understand that there has been a change in practice by the Church, such that now the reception of Holy Communion at Mass by persons who are divorced and civilly remarried is possible if they simply have a conversation with a priest.
******* "This view is erroneous." *******
===============================================================================
Vox, in contrast to the "green light" story in the newspaper that you linked, we have the teachings Latin-rite Dioceses of Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
Vox, I hope that you'll comment at length on the story.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The Irish Catholic must have a copy of a document that the Apostolic See is about to release. Otherwise, the newspaper has acted irresponsibly in many ways.
Unless the Apostolic See is about to declare otherwise, as Father Sotelo noted on Father Zuhlsdorf's blog, the following is in effect as His Holiness Pope Francis declared publicly that unrepentant Catholics who have divorced and "remarried" are not permitted to receive Holy Communion:
Father Sotelo: "Nothing in Catholic teaching has changed. Those who were previously in valid marriages, and have since remarried without a declaration of nullity, cannot receive Holy Communion. Period.
"The Pope is trying to direct clergy in those cases where previous validity of a marriage, and subsequent declaration of nullity, are murky, complicated and confusing to sort out.
"These are the cases that even the best, most orthodox seminary professors could never have prepared us for. Everyone: please quit acting, talking, and writing as if every married couple’s history and their cases can be so easily figured out by the rules of canon law.
"The Pope’s comment of “discernment” is quite orthodox because it refers, not to dispensing with rules, but trying to understand how they apply. There really are examples when we know not whether there is actual adultery and sin, or the invalid, previous non-marriage case, which was the tribunal says cannot be processed for a declaration of nullity.
"Kudos to Fr. Z for trying to explain that the Church has ever toiled in a minefield when we look at love and marriage, and when it was real/valid, and when it wasn’t. Canon law and tribunals do their best, but with some cases, even they are stumped–thus, the need for the internal forum, which is what Francis is dealing with."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Via their just-released document, "Guidelines For the Pastoral Accompaniment of Christ’s Faithful Who Are Divorced and Remarried Without a Decree of Nullity," the bishops of the Latin-rite Dioceses of Alberta and the Northwest Territories confirmed the following from Father Sotelo's statement:
"Nothing in Catholic teaching has changed. Those who were previously in valid marriages, and have since remarried without a declaration of nullity, cannot receive Holy Communion. Period."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Agree Vox. But Papal deniability will be protected regardless, so that Mark can explain why nothing has changed and the rules remain as they were.
Yes, formally the rules remain the same, but only on paper. The Pope has indeed given the green light to mortal sin. I don't care how often the Pope declares the 'rules' remain the same, he is telling Priests to 'discern' a situation of an irregular couple. In other words, he's saying: " Church teaching has not changed, but we must leave it up to individual consciences along with the 'discernment' and 'Pastoral care' of their Priest to allow them to Holy Communion. As he has said (in so many words) in the past: "Individual consciences rule". He has also said that "life is not always black and white, there are GREY AREAS". Well, my friend, the 'GREY AREAS' are the Devil's playground.
You're right Michael, but not just Mark, also our bishops, cardinals, priests, etc. All the while Catholics like me suffer with the obvious.
aaaaand this is all just the stepping stone on the way to sodomy sancification. Even at that point Mark Thomas will be defending it.
Kyrie eleison.
Here is a clear explanation of the entire situation that even Mark Thomas might agree.
Though being realistic this probably won't happen. His handlers would never allow it.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/09/op-ed-adultery-as-venial-sin-and-other.html
Susan, what I will defend is Church teaching. I will defend, for example, the teaching that God has empowered his Pope to teach, govern, and sanctify the Holy People of God. In 2013 A.D., His Holiness Pope Francis received that empowerment.
Satan wishes to separate Catholics from Pope Francis. However, although I am weak and sinful, with God's help, I will not permit Satan to separate me from the Vicar of Christ.
Susan, do as you will.
Finally, again with God's help, I will accept always the following teaching from the First Vatican Council:
"Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one Supreme Pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff.
"This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation."
Susan, do as you will. God has willed His People to remain attached and in obedience to Pope Francis. I will follow God and His Pope — Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept immaculate."
In the Apostolic See, "the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides."
— The Creed of Pope Saint Hormisdas.
Funny. Yes, how will Mark spin that one? I guess as archbishop of Buenos Aires everyone, I understand, took Holy Communion, was encouraged to do so. I imagine that included those who were sodomites. The Eucharist among that culture was erroneously considered like a "magic biscuit" that helps you on life's journey--and a symbol of inclusiveness. NO ONE is excluded. I imagine Lutherans will be given the green light next month.
"Susan, do as you will."....(that would be to follow GOD'S law and Commandments and to believe, promote, and defend the Divinely revealed Deposit of Faith against ALL enemies of Christ, whether they wear white polyester dresses or go by 2-word pseudonyms.)
"God has willed His People to remain attached and in obedience to Pope Francis."....(no 'mark', you are quite mistaken; God willed (wills) His people to remain attached and in obedience to CHRIST! Read St. Bellermine about how to respond to a pope who has fallen into heresy. You follow the francis at peril of your immortal soul. I'll follow CHRIST and the 2,000 years of Church teaching.)
"I will follow God and His Pope — Pope Francis."....(hey pal; news scoop....'francis ain't God's pope, nor is he a St. Hormisdas.)
You are a flaming troll and choose to remain blind in your and francis' multiple and grievous errors. You try the patience of good people because you enjoy dissension....bad character trait.
"Satan wishes to separate Catholics from Pope Francis..."
No, Mark Thomas - Satan wants to separate Catholics from Catholicism.
Satan wants to separate Catholics from heaven, so that they might spend eternity discerning with Fr Jim just how to implement "the joy of love" in the pits of hell.
Mark Thomas, you are a papolater, who it seems would gladly follow a heretic into hell - and bring many souls with you - rather than accept and rail against the terrible danger that the modernists who have taken earthly control of Christ's Church pose for the simple faith of the simple faithful.
"This is the basic result: the evaluations of the facts are entrusted to confessors, but at the end of the processes -- whether quick or slow -- all the divorced who ask for it will be admitted." - Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio: a statement never corrected, never denied, and now officially published (and thereby endorsed) by the man himself. Sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament, encouraged from the top. This is their program.
Thank you to Vox for speaking the truth, and opening eyes. Mark Thomas, you are an enabler and apologist for the evil spewing from the Vatican.
Mark Thomas said... Susan, what I will defend is Church teaching. I will defend, for example, the teaching that God has empowered his Pope to teach, govern, and sanctify the Holy People of God. In 2013 A.D., His Holiness Pope Francis received that empowerment.
In the Year of Our Lord 896, His Holiness Stephen VI also received that same power. Eight months after he was elected as the Supreme Pontiff, he held a synod where he ordered the body of a former pope, Pope Formosus, to be dug up and proceeded to put the corpse on trial for heresy, after which His Holiness Pope Stephen VI had the former pope's fingers cut off and the body thrown in the river.
Pope Stephen then declared Pope Formosus to be an antipope and had all his acts, ordinations, and consecrations annulled.
You would follow His Holiness Pope Stephen VI in his disgusting behavior.
Stephen's successors then annulled Stephen's synod and reversed his judgment on whether Pope Formosus was an antipope.
You would follow those two popes and reverse your judgment, thus disagreeing with His Holiness Pope Stephen VI.
A few pontificates later, in 904 A.D., His Holiness Pope Sergius III was given the power by Christ to teach, sanctify, and govern the Church of God.
Pope Sergius reversed the "reversers" and restated Pope Stephen VI's condemnation of His Holiness Pope Formosus. He also declared Pope Formosus to be an antipope and ordered all those ordained and consecrated by him to be reordained.
You would then follow His Holiness, the Roman Pontiff, Pope Sergius III, and reverse yourself yet again.
Over the course of a decade, you would be contradicting, not only yourself, but reason, common sense, and God Himself.
What is your answer to the question: Was Pope Formosus valid pope?
If so, why did at least two popes, both given the power to teach, sanctify, and govern Christ's Church, condemn him?
And why in the world would you follow them?
Michael Dowd, here is a response from Dr. Jeff Mirus' to his critics who lashed at him.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=685
His response is balanced and rational. Mr. Mirus' critics may be surprised that he shares their concerns about the pastoral response that His Holiness Pope Francis may enact in regard to divorced Catholics who have entered into new unions.
Other than having rejected the preposterous "Pope Francis teaches heresy" nonsense, Dr. Mirus declared that his rational critics (not the ones who reacted in knee-jerk fashion the other day) have raised solid points about the pastoral path that Pope Francis may travel in regard to divorced and "remarried" Catholics.
Dr. Mirus offered the following response (if only certain traditionalists could get past the "Satanic, heretic, Pope Benedict XVI is the real Pope, but he's drugged by Pope Francis" nonsense, then a rational discussion of Pope Francis' Pontificate could ensure)...
"My own prudential opinion of the Pope’s new pastoral approach is that, whatever its doctrinal and pastoral merits, it will lead inexorably to widespread and catastrophic abuses which are far worse than those we already experience as a result of our culture’s miserable handling of marriage.
"But beyond that prudential question, surely it is self-evident that the Holy Father should squarely address the canons which bear on this issue.
"Surely he should particularly address Canon 915’s applicability to the divorced and remarried. And surely the Pope has a major responsibility to revise or officially clarify the interpretation of Canon 915, if he believes this to be possible, before encouraging priests and bishops to follow a pastoral policy which contradicts exactly what the Church’s law is currently understood to demand.
"I have absolutely no doubt that it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. But a prudent captain still does his absolute best to avoid taking his ship through a storm."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim that Pope Francis is a heretic is preposterous. However, as to the amazement of his knee-jerk critics, Dr. Mirus acknowledged that there are sound, important arguments to consider that oppose the pastoral policy that Pope Francis may enact in regard to divorced and "remarried" Catholics.
The ridiculous shouts of "Satanic! Heretic!" against Pope Francis serve only to sidetrack and mar serious discussion in regard to whether Pope Francis' pastoral approach (should he travel that route) in question is sound.
Michael Dowd, what is not sound is ridiculous charges of "heresy...satanic" in which those who have despised Pope Francis from literally the first seconds of his Pontificate have trafficked.
As Dr. Mirus demonstrated, when we move beyond that fantasy world, we are able to enter the realm of serious, rational discussion in regard to Pope Francis' pastoral policies/prudential decisions.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark--
I agree with this statement for Dr. Jeff Mirius: ""My own prudential opinion of the Pope’s new pastoral approach is that, whatever its doctrinal and pastoral merits, it will lead inexorably to widespread and catastrophic abuses which are far worse than those we already experience as a result of our culture’s miserable handling of marriage."
Pope Francis is responsible for this situation. Calling Pope Francis a material heretic is not condemnatory enough. By leading folks astray with his confusing statements he is setting them on the road to hell. So, Mark, lets not call Pope Francis a heretic rather let us call him a tool of the devil.
Mark, answer what DJR said. If a future Pope proclaims officially that Francis and those who agreed with him were heretics, what will be your response? Either you'll have to admit you were wrong about Francis and apologize to all of us here for your obstinance (fat chance of that), or you'll have to contradict your own belief that everything all Popes say is right, and go against that Pope.
DJR,
You asked a few very good questions, addressed to Mark Thomas, regarding Pope Formosus, but Mark Thomas has yet to answer them.
It would seem that the action taken by Pope Sergius, in restating Pope Stephen Vl' condemnation of Pope Formosus, proves that a Pope can fall into heresy, and it is harldy out of the question, IMO, to call a Pope a heretic when he has proven himself to be one. Pope Formosus was declared an anti-pope by Pope Sergius, who also ordered that all those who were consecrated by Pope Formosus were to be re-ordained. That's very telling.
~M. Ray (one of the parrots who believes in sound Catholic teaching).
DJR, do you disagree with that which I said to Susan? Or do you just want my reaction to the case of His Holiness Stephen VI? Either way, I will be happy to respond more fully to your questions.
For now, I simply expressed Church teaching to Susan. Correct?
In regard to His Holiness Stephen VI, how does his case alter the following?
God empowered His Popes to teach, govern, and sanctify the Holy People of God. We are required by God to submit in humility to Pope Francis' awesome, God-given authority. Correct? Or has the case of Pope Stephen VI changed that?
"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept immaculate."
In the Apostolic See, "the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides."
DJR, that remains true today. Correct?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I just saw the following...before I go...
Matthew said..."Mark Thomas, you are a papolater..."
Please demonstrate where I misrepresented Church teaching regarding the Papacy. I didn't know that my allegiance to Church teaching rendered me a papolater.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Only Mark Thomas and Jeff Mirius live in a fantasy world.
Mirius's ridiculous claims have been refuted by Rorate and Louie Verrichio. Even Dr. Edward Peters, who sides with Mirius did so up to an extent, having to correct Mirius and even he is still wrong.
Mirius' stupid argument is refuted by his own example's absurdity that an adulterous couple can continue having sexual relations for the sake of the children and therefore receive Communion because of CIRCUMSTANTIAL ETHICS, until the kids turn 18, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE, which is when the adulterous relation must therefore cease and Communion no longer be given, as Verricho shows is the absurdity reached from Mirius' stupid 'adultery can be venial sin' example that Mark Thomas swallows like a fool; Even unto declaring that Communion reception is dicipline not doctrine! Jeff Mirius, if we were not convinced was emotionally-thinking in the moment who doesn't know what he's talking about, would also be a heretic, along with Mark Thomas for accepting his thesis, alongside Dr. Ed 'communion should've be given to an apostate lesbian buddhist' Peters.
Mark Thomas has misrepresented Church teachings by continuing to hold to Amoris Letitia despite being demonstrated to that it rejects Church teaching and contradicts previous Popes, including the one it mis-quotes from, something Mark Thomas himself is quite good at doing.
Mark Thomas is pretending to be an idiot when he in fact knows precisely why others have brought up the situation with previous anti-popes. In that there are plenty of grounds to see that it is possible that Pope Francis is a heretic and an anti-pope. But Mark Thomas deliberately doesn't want to enter that into consideration and therefore does what he does.
Pope Francis has objectively promoted heresy. Formal/Informal is another question left up to the Church to investigate. But in the face of the opposition he himself has seen and numerous appeals, all well argued and detailed, all offering him the full benefit of the doubt, I'm guessing 'formal.' But that's for a future council to declare.
Thanks, Johnno. Well said. This Mark Thomas and Mirus may be one and the same!
Mark Thomas is a defender of the papacy--any papacy--regardless of how bad it is. Facts and rational arguments have no place in a discussion with him. His goal is misinformation and cover-up of Pope Francis material heresies. He has the same position as Opus Dei on Pope Francis and may be a Opus Dei member himself.
Pope Francis is carrying out the hidden Modernist mandate of Vatican II to Protestantize and secularize the Church with the goal of creating a one world Free Masonry religion for a one world government.
Vatican II has been a catastrophe for the Church and must be abrogated in it's entirety.
Post a Comment