aderito
Lord send us real good sheppards that do the Will of God not the will of the world
Orthocat
Well, this latest presser clears up one thing - Francis support same-sex 'civil unions' I vividly recall when that atrocious & fawning documentary was made about him quoting this support, we were told at our church that the film-maker manipulated the footage to make Francis appear to say something he didn't. The next day a bulletin from the chancery assured us that the "holy Father' in no way …More
Well, this latest presser clears up one thing - Francis support same-sex 'civil unions' I vividly recall when that atrocious & fawning documentary was made about him quoting this support, we were told at our church that the film-maker manipulated the footage to make Francis appear to say something he didn't. The next day a bulletin from the chancery assured us that the "holy Father' in no way endorses same-sex pseudo-marriage. Lied to again!!
Scapular
Message delivered by St Michael on Our Lady's behalf, to Conchita at Garabandal on June 18, 1965?
"Many Cardinals, Many Bishops And Many Priests Are On The Road To Perdition And Taking Many Souls With Them."
Advocata
On Burke, English Translation on Vatican News has changed claiming that Francis said “antivaxxers”. But Francis clearly says “negazionisti” or “denialists”. Several typos as well. Very odd.
Werte
Basically, Bergoglio is a politician (which largely accounts for most of his hypocrisy). He has a specific, self-centred agenda, and he won't let anyone (most of all, Christ Himself) stand in his way of fulfilling his goals (which correlate with those of the world).
Advocata
Is Slovakia the only country that retains the Ember Days on its national Novus Ordo Calendar on the same days in which they are traditionally celebrated?
Prayhard
An evil, uncharitable lewd old sot. 'May his days be short and another take his place' as the psalmist said.
giveusthisday
He is our pope. Even if it were just another person, that kind of language and attitude does not imitate Our Lord, who forgave even those who put him to death. Also, He taught us to pray, "and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
V.R.S.
“Those who are not in the community cannot take communion - like this Jewish lady, but the Lord wanted to reward her and without my knowledge - why?”.
---
The fundamental question arises: who is his Lord?
Caroline03
Francis has "never denied communion to anyone,"

It is a Priest's responsibility to make sure to the best of his ability that all participants in the Sacrament of Holy Communion are espoused to Our Lord. As Scripture lets us see.

Each person who attends the Marriage Supper of the Bridegroom HAS to be Married to the Lamb prior to receiving the Spouse in the Wedding Feast Marriage takes place at …More
Francis has "never denied communion to anyone,"

It is a Priest's responsibility to make sure to the best of his ability that all participants in the Sacrament of Holy Communion are espoused to Our Lord. As Scripture lets us see.

Each person who attends the Marriage Supper of the Bridegroom HAS to be Married to the Lamb prior to receiving the Spouse in the Wedding Feast Marriage takes place at the Sacrament of Confirmation. Within this ceremony those becoming a member of the RC Church (aka The Bride of Christ) are historically meant to make sure they are viewing it as a Marriage - so they go dressed in Bridal Garments. Incl. the Bridal veil if she is female.

The Marriage Feast
"11‘ And the king having come in to view those reclining, saw there a man not clothed with clothing of the marriage-feast, 12 and he saith to him, Comrade, how didst thou come in hither, not having clothing of the marriage-feast? and he was speechless. 13‘Then said the king to the ministrants, Having bound his feet and hands, take him up and cast forth to the outer darkness, there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth; 14 for many are called, and few chosen.’ Matthew 22

I remember watching the conversion story of a former Methodist. She viewed Our Lord's Marriage Supper as being just a wafer. She popped along to the local Catholic Church to experience Holy Communion. She admitted that without having joined the RC Church she stood in the Communion Line and partook of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. After she returned to her pew, she became scared. She suddenly became overwhelmed inside her that she had committed a crime! Receiving the Eucharist was punishing her. She became overwhelmed with sorrow feeling she should not be inside the Church and needed to run out and cry.

She heard Christ's voice inside her in the middle of these emotions He rebuked her saying

"Must you STEAL what I would freely give you?"

She knew that she had committed a terrible crime. She knew that Our Lord freely offers Himself to the Church - but if you are not part of His Bride it is theft to partake of the Eucharist without being Married to Him in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

1Corinthians 11

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep."

The Marriage Supper is BANNED to those who are not Married to Christ.
Why do these mere MEN despise the teachings of Christ? Stop re-evaluating Holy Communion to be something other than the Gospel foretells and explains. The modern era considers Marriage unnecessary, don't be so wicked so that you expect Christ to give Himself in this Sacrament to those who are not Married to Him. Many Priests are guilty of such neglect They do not have any respect for either the purity of Christ or His Divine Statutes regarding who may or may not receive the Marriage Feast.
stjoseph2
Jorge is not the pope. He is a demon dressed as pope. Pure evil!
Caroline03
St Justin Martyr (Disciple of St John)

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ …More
St Justin Martyr (Disciple of St John)

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Landon Scott Chancey shares this
15
Hugh N. Cry
Oh yeah, that’s funny as hell. NOT!
la verdad prevalece
9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! Galatians 1
Ultraviolet
"Then he insisted that there should not be any more excommunications," The SSPX just lit a candle for the Pope they refuse to obey.
philosopher
Any Catholic priest worth their salt and not only the SSPX, would if ordered to "never deny communion to anyone" including divorced and remarried Catholics, refuse to obey such an illegitimate use of the proper limits of Papal authority.
Ultraviolet
No True Scotsman Fallacy and you should know better. ;-) INB4 you resort to Steve D's style of rhetoric. Baww, dats logic-chopping. No, it's pointing out an error in reasoning.

"an illegitimate use of the proper limits of Papal authority."
--as defined (and more importantly) as adjudicated by whom? Sure is Marcel Lefebvre in here. Shades of our previous discussion.

Lefebvre Logic 101---There…More
No True Scotsman Fallacy and you should know better. ;-) INB4 you resort to Steve D's style of rhetoric. Baww, dats logic-chopping. No, it's pointing out an error in reasoning.

"an illegitimate use of the proper limits of Papal authority."
--as defined (and more importantly) as adjudicated by whom? Sure is Marcel Lefebvre in here. Shades of our previous discussion.

Lefebvre Logic 101---There's a crisis in The Church because I say there is. The Pope is wrong to tell me I can't to what I want because I say he is. Therefore I can break Church Law because I say the law doesn't apply.

It's an illegitimate use of the proper limits of Papal Authority because I say it's illegitimate and I decide what's proper Papal Authority not the Pope or The Church---.

No, it isn't a straw-man for you, Philosopher, just a very quick summary of months of Abp. Lefebvre's tortured reasoning leading up to his schism.

It's that mentality that led Pope Paul VI to accuse Abp. Lefebvre of acting like an anti-pope.
Scapular
What if a Pope is contrary to the Papacy?
philosopher
@Ultravilet Since, I'm not claiming that a real pope would never do the things Frances does (that would be sedevacan- there have been worse cases- Pope Julius, aledgedly, threatened his mistress with excommunication when she let it slip that she was leaving him- so, the no true pope fallacy does not apply.

But you do raise an interesting question. What is the nature or essence and limits of …More
@Ultravilet Since, I'm not claiming that a real pope would never do the things Frances does (that would be sedevacan- there have been worse cases- Pope Julius, aledgedly, threatened his mistress with excommunication when she let it slip that she was leaving him- so, the no true pope fallacy does not apply.

But you do raise an interesting question. What is the nature or essence and limits of Papal authority?
Ultraviolet
The No True Scotsman Fallacy applies to your comment "Any Catholic priest worth their salt would..."

Borrowing your style of re-wording, it's a "No True Catholic Priest Fallacy". Nice try, though. You truly (no exaggeraton) made me do a double take before I caught the misdirection. That was clever. :)
philosopher
hyper-pedanticism aside- colloquialisms are not formal arguments- but I digress. Interesting to note that you evaded the question on what is the nature, essence and limits of papal authority.
philosopher
@Scapular I can certainly understand under the present papacy, why people are asking these questions, however, only the bishops can start an inquisistion in order to bring formal charges of herecy aginst a sitting pontiff, and only they can remove him. Pope Francis says many things that disturb the Catholic soul but herecy is a serious ecclasistical crime that falls under canon law. And, the …More
@Scapular I can certainly understand under the present papacy, why people are asking these questions, however, only the bishops can start an inquisistion in order to bring formal charges of herecy aginst a sitting pontiff, and only they can remove him. Pope Francis says many things that disturb the Catholic soul but herecy is a serious ecclasistical crime that falls under canon law. And, the accused would have to be questioned and given a chance to respond and give their own account on what they mean and understand when they say the things that may or may not fall under herecy. Moreover, the pope could pull rank and not show up, or stall, or delay the process- perhaps even behind the scenes threatening some with excomunication and others a nice bishopric in Siberia. We see how far the Dubia went...no where! There are precedents for miracles, but it is highly unlikely that the Roman Curia is going to accuse Pope Francis of anything other than being awesome at the present time.

We may not like the Pope's loose and ambiguous language, or as St. Paul said, blowing trumpets of an uncertain sound, but no matter how bad personally, or doctrinally, the pope is still the pope, and one can not be Catholic without him. But, take heart b/c even though every dog has its day, the sun sets and fades away, and so too for every Papa malum.
Ultraviolet
Accusations of pedantry are a poor substitute for sloppy reasoning. @philosopher

Your double-standards are more than petty, truth told. You were more than happy to debate the point on logical grounds until you lost.

Then it became "hyper-pedanticism" and before that "logic-chopping". Lately you're turning into a better educated version of Steve D.. Every time he gets factually corrected it's …More
Accusations of pedantry are a poor substitute for sloppy reasoning. @philosopher

Your double-standards are more than petty, truth told. You were more than happy to debate the point on logical grounds until you lost.

Then it became "hyper-pedanticism" and before that "logic-chopping". Lately you're turning into a better educated version of Steve D.. Every time he gets factually corrected it's "sophistry". You've picked up some bad habits there,.

Worse, if I made such a "colloquialism" you'd be tearing into it like a toy poodle on a chewy-treat just to finally score a point for once. :D

"Interesting to note that you evaded the question on what is the nature, essence and limits of papal authority."

I didn't evade it since you raised it rhetoricially.

Furthermore, contrary to your claim of "you do raise an interesting question" --I didn't raise that as a question at all.

Keep your fallacious strawmen "questions" in your own back pasture and don't prop them up in mine.

There's no obligation for me to legitimize each and every one of your rhetorical musings with an answer.
philosopher
Its not about winning or loosing but about pursuing the truth of the matter.
Ultraviolet
So you claim once more, yet once again, your tactics show otherwise.

I've already supplied you an exhaustive link covering the SSPX's descent into schism. If you wish to pursue "the truth of the matter" the way you keep repeating, I suggest you go read it.
philosopher
The question of the Orthodox church is settled and it is unanimous that they have broken from Rome and are in schism. They even proudly admit such. However, on the SSPX this question is still in dispute and not at all settled, which is why we don't find a unanimity of opinion by Canon lawyers- some make the case for schism and others that the SSPX are not in schism. The same goes with bishops. …More
The question of the Orthodox church is settled and it is unanimous that they have broken from Rome and are in schism. They even proudly admit such. However, on the SSPX this question is still in dispute and not at all settled, which is why we don't find a unanimity of opinion by Canon lawyers- some make the case for schism and others that the SSPX are not in schism. The same goes with bishops. Some bishops have retired and went to live in residency with a SSPX priory and others like Anthanasius Schnieder have written in his recent book Christus Vincit, an entire chapter on why the SSPX are not in schism. In addition, Vigano doesn't think they are either, and yet Crd. Burke, and many others have commented in interviews that in their opinion they are. We could easily go down the rabbit hole of battling Canonists and bishops, but I'm more interested in the question of what the nature of authority in the Church is, and what are its limits?
Ultraviolet
"However, on the SSPX this question is still in dispute and not at all settled,"

Until another Pope sits down and writes an aposolic letter contradicting "Ecclesia Die" it's settled until then.

"...which is why we don't find a unanimity of opinion by Canon lawyers- some make the case for schism and others that the SSPX are not in schism."

Canon Lawers are not the Pope. :)

"The same goes with…More
"However, on the SSPX this question is still in dispute and not at all settled,"

Until another Pope sits down and writes an aposolic letter contradicting "Ecclesia Die" it's settled until then.

"...which is why we don't find a unanimity of opinion by Canon lawyers- some make the case for schism and others that the SSPX are not in schism."

Canon Lawers are not the Pope. :)

"The same goes with bishops."

Bishops are not the Pope, either. ;-)

Bishop Anthanasius Schnieder isn't the Pope or even a Cardinal. :D

Cardinals are not The Pope. until one guy convinces his buddies otherwise. :P

"We could easily go down the rabbit hole of battling Canonists and bishops,"

Only if we fall into the mistake of assuming they have equal authority to the Pope. That was Abp. Lefebvre's mistake.

"but I'm more interested in the question of what the nature of authority in the Church is, and what are its limits?"

...as do many in the SSPX, for obvious reasons. Since I'm not part of the SSPX, the Church's authority isn't a constant sore-point for me.

I hope that doesn't sound snarky. It wasn't meant to be. We simply have different priorities.
philosopher
I can respect that! If you have the time or inclination, there is Fr. Altman's latest talk on legitimate vs illegitimate authority on gloria tv. He includes papal authority as well. I have to give it to the guy he's got some chutzpah. He's not backing down or joining the FSSP or SSPX but remains in the diocese and fighting with his appeal to Rome to be restored as pastor to his former parish.
atreverse pensar
His confused comment, “Those who are not in the community cannot take communion - like this Jewish lady, but the Lord wanted to reward her and without my knowledge - why?”.
Because you are Judas
Ultraviolet
Even Judas tried to undo the error he'd made. .
Maria Pocs
Flashback 2019: Joe Biden says, “The Holy Father gives me Communion”
Seer3
Such a petty man: Francis references Cardinal Burke's hospitalization with Covid: "Even in the college of cardinals, there are some vaccine deniers, and one of them, poor man, is in hospital with the virus. It’s an irony of life."
Maria Pocs
Oh, he has evidence that the poor man wouldn’t have contracted COVID-19 if he’d taken the shot?
De Profundis
Imagine being Cardinal Burke…and then having to kiss his ring
Seer3
Plane Francis: “Do you remember the storm that was stirred by Amoris laetitia when that chapter on accompanying separated, divorced couples came out: ‘Heresy, heresy!’ Thank God there was [creepy] Cd. Schönborn, a great theologian!