Pope Francis accused of Heresy.

[Kenngo1969]

53 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

... I'm opinionated with the subtlety of a Hurdy Gurdy.  ...  

You and me, both, Brother!  You and me both!     (And if opinions, alone, are enough to send someone to Hell , then I should be very worried!   )

[Storm Rider]

This is a very divisive accusation of Pope Francis. These times are very unsettling for the Christian world as the Western world rejects its religious and moral heritage and the morality of religious leaders is often found wanting. 

Now is a time for reflection and renewal of all Christianity. Are we, as a member of the Body of Christ, to be a source of holiness and righteousness or are we to fall to the philosophies of men and of the bankrupt moral code of hedonism?

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Storm Rider

[Storm Rider]

Here is another link to an article that address this topic of the letter accusing the pope of heresy. Moral concerns abound with this pope. Very sad indeed.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Here is another link to an article that address this topic of the letter accusing the pope of heresy. Moral concerns abound with this pope. Very sad indeed.

I would argue that the title is a tad hyperbolic. Pope Francis is definitely not "one of the worst crises in the history of the Catholic Church."

[strappinglad]

Side note: " seeing through a glass darkly " always had me think of the glass in a welders helmet. Recently I read of an alternate translation in which ' glass ' was replaced by' mirror'. That would add an interesting twist to the meaning. 

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

"one of the worst crises in the history of the Catholic Church."

Whoever said this needs to spend more time in a good library and perhaps focus on the 4th and 5th centuries AD. 

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would argue that the title is a tad hyperbolic. Pope Francis is definitely not "one of the worst crises in the history of the Catholic Church."

I agree completely. I don't think Pope Francis and his reign is even close to the worst crises in the history of the CC. In truth, it is not even in the top ten, or top 100 I would think. However, the fact that both clerics and academics would go so far as to make a formal, pubic renunciation of the Pope and his teachings is extremely challenging for the Catholic Church. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Storm Rider

[rockpond]

Just now, Storm Rider said:

I agree completely. I don't think Pope Francis and his reign is even close to the worst rises in the history of the CC. In truth, it is not even in the top ten I would think. However, the fact that both clerics and academics would go so far as to make a formal, pubic renunciation of the Pope and his teachings is extremely challenging for the Catholic Church. 

Maybe if the journalist had said one of the worst in *modern history*... with modern meaning only as far back as a google news search would take them.

[poptart]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

This is a very divisive accusation of Pope Francis. These times are very unsettling for the Christian world as the Western world rejects its religious and moral heritage and the morality of religious leaders are often found wanting. 

Now is a time for reflection and renewal. Are we as a member of the Body of Christ to be a source of holiness and righteousness or are we to fall to the philosophies of men and of a bankrupt moral code of hedonism?

 

Could always go back to worshiping Odin and Jupiter/Zeus....Wotan Mitt Uns, Hail Jupiter Patria!

21 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Side note: " seeing through a glass darkly " always had me think of the glass in a welders helmet. Recently I read of an alternate translation in which ' glass ' was replaced by' mirror'. That would add an interesting twist to the meaning. 

Whoever said this needs to spend more time in a good library and perhaps focus on the 4th and 5th centuries AD. 

Don't forget the fun times Dr. Luther gave em...

[rockpond]

I'm still curious from those who know more about the Catholic Church... are the bishops to whom this open letter is addressed likely to do anything with the content of this letter?

I get that there is a group of people, possibly quite large, within the church who are opposed to the Pope's teachings on homosexuality and homosexual relationships but aside from making headlines for a few days, it this likely to get any traction?  If so, how does one remove a pope?

[MiserereNobis]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm still curious from those who know more about the Catholic Church... are the bishops to whom this open letter is addressed likely to do anything with the content of this letter?

Not likely.

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If so, how does one remove a pope?

A pope cannot be deposed. He can only voluntarily resign.

[MiserereNobis]

Nothing substantial will come of this because nothing substantial can come of it. Pope Francis was duly elected and is the valid pope. There is no way for anyone to do anything to him; he has full, complete, and supreme power over the entire Catholic Church. The most people could do is to separate themselves from the Catholic Church and set up their own schismatic church. Very few would do this. There isn't going to be a second protestant rebellion or a mass exodus from the Church. Perhaps the next pope will do some course corrections for the barque of Peter (like dumping the name Catholic and making us call ourselves One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Christians  )

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would argue that the title is a tad hyperbolic. Pope Francis is definitely not "one of the worst crises in the history of the Catholic Church."

Such hyperbole is not rare:

Edmund: Er, yes, right. Gentlemen, right... (reads from Harry's notes) As you
know, today we face the gravest crisis this country has known since
the Roman invasion.
(They all make sounds of protest: "Nonsense!"; "Rubbish!"; etc.)
Lord 1: What about the Viking invasion?
Lord 2: ...and the Norman invasion?
Angus: ...and the Swiss invasion?
Edmund: Er, well, the greatest crisis for some time.
Lord 2: And we all know why!
Edmund: Why?
Angus: Because the King is possessed!
Edmund: What?!
Lord 2: True! True! The land is full of omens of bewitchment. Only last week
in Cornwall, a man with four heads was seen taking tea on the beach;
and two women in Windsor claimed to have been raped by a fish!
Lord 1: I, too, have heard such tales. In (Harrigate?), it rained phlegm; and
they do say that, in Edinburgh, the graves did open and the ghosts of
our ancestors rose up and competed in athletic sports!
Percy: ...and a friend of mine had this awful pimple on the inside of his
nose!!!

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Nothing substantial will come of this because nothing substantial can come of it. Pope Francis was duly elected and is the valid pope. There is no way for anyone to do anything to him; he has full, complete, and supreme power over the entire Catholic Church. The most people could do is to separate themselves from the Catholic Church and set up their own schismatic church. Very few would do this. There isn't going to be a second protestant rebellion or a mass exodus from the Church. Perhaps the next pope will do some course corrections for the barque of Peter (like dumping the name Catholic and making us call ourselves One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Christians  )

No secret assassination corps hidden for centuries just in case?  So disappointing!

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

No secret assassination corps hidden for centuries just in case?  So disappointing!

I know Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code fame would be quite disappointed.

However, if there was such a corps, I think the Swiss Guard could more than handle it

[Calm]

Two things...glasses just don't work with such helmets.

And they look way too young to all have  those beer guts (is it the angle or is the breastplate made reasonably for breathing?).

add-on:  looks like angle as the stomach line comes to a point rather than all rounded as appears in the above

Edited May 2, 2019 by Calm

[poptart]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are there people who "convert" for cynical, selfish, or shallow reasons?  Sadly, yes.  The Parable of the Sower tells us that.  But while everything I can discern about a particular situation might convince me that someone belongs in that category, I cannot see another person's heart: God can (see I Sam. 16:7).  I may be absolutely convinced that I have all of the facts necessary to judge another person righteously, yet I may also be completely wrong.  (In any event, thankfully, I am not in a position which obliges me to judge another person on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ.)  His standing before God is between God and him, and no one else.

And as far as laying aside history, science, and "facts" for the sake of holding onto faith, I'm not convinced that that situation is as black-and-white as you make it out to be here, either.  I believe that is so for several reasons. 

First of all, none of us sees history, science, or even "facts" as they are.  We see them as we (the viewers) are.  Often, that's true especially with regard to history.  As noble a dream as objectivity might be, it's impossible for humans to be completely objective, and many of us, no matter how much we might try to avoid doing so, cannot help but view the past through something of a presentist lens (however small that lens may be).  It seems to be the perfect illustration of what the Apostle Paul called "seeing through a glass, darkly" (I Corinthians 13:12).

Secondly, even "facts" carefully weighed seldom compel one to reach one conclusion or another.  Theoretically, it's possible to present the exact same case to two different juries, who might reach diametrically opposing conclusions regarding that evidence.  When it comes to matters of faith, each of us is our own trier of fact.  Each of us determines for himself what evidence he will admit, what evidence he will exclude, how much weight to give to any particular piece of evidence, and so on.  Were it otherwise, free will would play less of a role in the unfolding human drama than it does (see 2 Nephi 2:27, Doctrine and Covenants 58:26-28).  And I get to choose the paradigm I use in any given situation: I am free to employ a scientifically sound paradigm while weighing scientific "facts," while, alternately, choosing to use an entirely different (but no less valid or valuable, since, largely, such determinations are a matter of perspective) paradigm for considering matters of faith.

Third, do some people retain their membership and/or remain active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the sake of career, family and other relationships, and for similar reasons?  Even, perhaps, for the sake of simple appearances?  Yes.  But because the line between clergy and laity in the Church of Jesus Christ not only is blurred, it is nonexistent, that's much more difficult to do in this Church than it is in many others.  Is simply "faking it" impossible?  No, but it's much harder to do that in the Church of Jesus Christ, in which, routinely, people are asked to put their money, time, and other resources where their mouths are: There's much more "skin in the game" for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than there is for someone whose commitment, largely, entails parking his butt in a pew for an hour a week.  It's much easier to "fake it" in the second of those situations than it is in the first.

Fourth, while there may be people who "convert" purely for material reasons, someone should tell them that the bishop of the geographical area in which they reside is responsible for the temporal welfare of everyone within the boundaries of his ward: while, perhaps, the needs of ward members dictate priority in receiving needed help, an elaborate ruse of feigning faith in (and conversion to) the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is unnecessary.

So, to me that sounds less like facts and presenting evidence to a jury.  I’ve not always had faith in them, they can be bias and jury by peers can mean having a case presented to some of the biggest idiots out there.  That and at least here stateside, unless you have the money for a good attourney, yeah good luck.  For me, facts are things backed by scientific research, many varied sample sizes, throughout analysis as well as data that statistically reflects favorably on findings.  Religion has done wonderful things but lets face it, it’s also full of some bad people who will happily exploit you.  In that sense I absolutely judge them because I’ve been harmed by them.  I could care less what some deity has to say, if his followers are garbage people, they’re just that, garbage.  They dishonor their god and their folk, I have little need for their kind nor their associations. 

Now for the good part of good cop bad cop, the part about faking it I totally believe.  Those I’ve known who coasted tended to already have family in the church and unlike me, had families that cared about their welfare and helped/loved them no matter what.  I’ve never been that fortunate and after a lot of the harm done, I am well past that point of putting faith in some arbitrary thing that’s based off the feelings of others but when it comes down to actually doing the work, will weasel out and make some excuse based off their holy text.  If it was someone like you or pretty much anyone on this board, that would be a different story.  I really do feel like those of you I know are very, very deceint people who would most likely give the shirt off your back.  Your religion needs more of you guys. 

As to the last parahraph, wish I could say I experienced the same.  If it wasn’t for a more liberal, understanding brother in Christ, I’d have been up a creek. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Not likely.

A pope cannot be deposed. He can only voluntarily resign.

Thank you for these answers and the other explanation.  Very much appreciated. 

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I know Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code fame would be quite disappointed.

However, if there was such a corps, I think the Swiss Guard could more than handle it

I'm not sure about that. Their rotund belly armor makes them look... well, maybe not quite up to the job!! Looks like I could be a Swiss guard....lol 

Maybe what he needs is a good ol' fashioned Roman guard...just look at those pecs:

Edited May 2, 2019 by RevTestament

[6EQUJ5]

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Nothing substantial will come of this because nothing substantial can come of it. Pope Francis was duly elected and is the valid pope. There is no way for anyone to do anything to him; he has full, complete, and supreme power over the entire Catholic Church. The most people could do is to separate themselves from the Catholic Church and set up their own schismatic church. Very few would do this. There isn't going to be a second protestant rebellion or a mass exodus from the Church. Perhaps the next pope will do some course corrections for the barque of Peter (like dumping the name Catholic and making us call ourselves One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Christians  )

I'd like to see the Catholic Church simply call itself the Church of Jesus Christ.  No possible confusion could come from that.

[6EQUJ5]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I'm not sure about that. Their rotund belly armor makes them look... well, maybe not quite up to the job!! Looks like I could be a Swiss guard....lol 

Maybe what he needs is a good ol' fashioned Roman guard...just look at those pecs:

LOL.  This made me think of something really silly  @Scott Lloyd said the other day.  He said that Church Security were the Swiss Guard of Temple Square.  LOL.  What a great sense of humor.

[poptart]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I'm not sure about that. Their rotund belly armor makes them look... well, maybe not quite up to the job!! Looks like I could be a Swiss guard....lol 

Maybe what he needs is a good ol' fashioned Roman guard...just look at those pecs:

Swiss pikemen were probably the best soldiers of the day, right up there with the landsknecht.  They'd have made short work of a lot of the roman infantry.  (guns....)  Also, a lot of em are Swiss, never make the Swiss mad.  What they lack in manpower they make up for in money, everyone elses money.  Catholics in Europe are one group of people I'd not want to make angry, they're irritated enough as it is with the migrants causing trouble, someone trying something against the pope may well be enough to tip them over the edge.  Would make for an awesome show, one I'd be sitting out and watching from afar lol.....

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I'd like to see the Catholic Church simply call itself the Church of Jesus Christ.  No possible confusion could come from that.

Quite sure they'd love to see all of us become Roman Catholics too, that's not happening of course.

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

LOL.  This made me think of something really silly  @Scott Lloyd said the other day.  He said that Church Security were the Swiss Guard of Temple Square.  LOL.  What a great sense of humor.

 

[TOmNossor]

On 5/1/2019 at 11:40 AM, rockpond said:

The contrast with Mormonism is interesting as it seems that our general reaction to the prophet teaching something that differs from past teachings is to consider it new revelation.  Or, at the very least - inspired teaching.  And we strive to make it fit with what has already been taught or we tend to dismiss older teachings.

I am unable to properly represent  @3DOP thoughts here and I think this thread will make it more difficult for him to offer his thoughts in any case.  But ... I wanted to start by saying that 3DOP doesn't agree completely with what I am about to say.  Also @MiserereNobis can offer agreement or correction.

Catholics do not believe that TODAY God's Church on earth is lead by Public Revelation from God to be delivered to the body of the Church.  In the 3rd Century brilliant and at the time Catholic scholar Tertullian still believed God's Church should be lead by revelation.  Tertullian embraced a group of folks who claimed to receive this revelation.  The authority that survived (not Tertullian who claimed to be a priest, but this is disputed or others who agreed with him that were probably clergy, but this is unknown) responded to "the New Prophecy" by claiming not only that it was not true, but that there would be no new prophecy until Christ returned.  They didn't receive it and nobody other than them could.

Over time it became the position of Catholic Church that there job was to preserve the faith once delivered to the saints (see Jude 1:3).

High Church Anglicans and other Protestant scholars beat the crap out of Catholics with evidence from the Early Church Fathers that SOME of what Catholics teach and believe was not delivered to the Church by scripture or Tradition, but instead came later.  One of these High Church Anglicans was John Henry Newman.  As Newman studied the ECF he discovered that some of the UNIQUE Catholic beliefs (the primacy of the Bishop of Rome for example) DEVELOPED (let me say again DEVELOPED) alongside things like the Trinity and the Eucharist and the Dual Nature of Christ and ...  Newman RIGHTLY recognized that it was untenable to be a High Church Anglican who believed that a big pile of developments was valid all the while another pile of developments were being defined at the same time by the same people that High Church Anglicans REJECT.  Newman became Catholic and brought his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine with him.

Rome was initially suspicious of his ideas.  It had been clearly taught for years that the deposit of faith was complete.  It was contained in Scripture and Tradition.  It was the Catholic Church's responsibility to GUARD the deposit of faith, not change it (not develop it which is a soft word for change).  Some American Bishops asked Orestas Bronson to respond to Newman.  This is what he produced: Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine and I think one other essay I read long ago.  But, Newman won the day.

Vatican II was called "Newman's Council.'

When Pope John Paul II was the Pope it SEEMED to me that the strongest Catholic position was that Public Revelation had ended.  Somehow the councils and the Pope were protected from error as they DEVELOPED Christian doctrine (from the acorn to the oak) and such was a valid part of Christianity.  Newman's "marks of a true development" were indicators of what was a real development and what was theological speculation or heresy.  Much of the "spirit of Vatican II" was theological speculation or heresy, but it was possible to read Vatican II in a very conservative way and not view it as anti-Newman innovation.  With JPII as the Pope, I still thought the amount of development necessary and the absence of what I considered "early anticipation" created PROBLEMS for the truth claims of the Catholic Church under JPII, but it was the best with which I would compare Best to Best.

I think it is important to point out that CHANGE in the Catholic Church is not viewed as revelation because CHANGE is impossible and Public Revelation ended.  So I made this post.

 

I would like to offer my understanding of a Catholic response to part of the above.  Public Revelation ended because all revelation from the Old Testament to the New Testament was pointing to the self-revelation of God in His Son Jesus Christ.  This is the completion and culmination of Public Revelation and thus there is no need for further revelation.  ALSO, Private Revelation is still part of the Catholic Church.  God can still speak to leaders and members.  It is not that God no longer speaks it is that this communication is not Public Revelation.

I know 3DOP has some thoughts beyond this.  I even tried to find something I thought was associated with Catherine of Siena or something that he suggested was prophesy.

 

Anyway, I submit that 3DOP and MiserereNobis know Pope Francis is not changing the Church because of revelation because such is not part of the Catholic Church.  The CoJCoLDS is much more messy in this area.

Charity, TOm  

[poptart]

Wonder if we'll get a new pope/anti-pope like this.

 

[Wade Englund]

On 5/1/2019 at 5:30 PM, rockpond said:

I get that there is a group of people, possibly quite large, within the church who are opposed to the Pope's teachings on homosexuality and homosexual relationships ...

Not that rockpond will respond (he has blocked me), but I would be interested in getting @3DOP and @MiserereNobis and any other current or former Catholic view on a slightly different take on the homosexual issue.

Some in the Catholic church are suggesting that it isn't so much the Pope's teaching on homosexuality that is the real concern--though it is related, rather it was the successful strategy of Stalin to destroy communism's most feared enemy (the Catholic Church) by infiltrating its priesthood with non-believing homosexual, thereby destroying the Church from within. (see, for example, HERE and HERE and HERE and  HERE )

Either way, I pray for your Church and all the very good and decent people within it. May God bless and guide and preserve you.

The reason I believe this may be significant, is that homosexuals, and homosexuality, are also being used by the Left to try and take down other Christian faiths, including my own--as made daily evident on this board no less, though completely ignoring the Muslim religion (for reasons that may be obvious),  with the intent of destroying the foundation and fabric of Western civilization and ultimately Western civilization itself.

Sadly, the homosexuals and their well-intended supporters, are under the impression that they are doing a great and wonderful and virtuous work, not realizing they , like other minority or so-called oppressed groups, are being played by communists/socialists for other purposes.

Call me a conspiracy theorists, but there it is. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Call me a conspiracy theorists, but there it is.

Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist. Q?