…or so you’d think if you got all your information about Catholicism from blog comboxes.
Not surprisingly, Pope Francis has been in the news lately. The media jumped on his offhand comments about homosexuals, breathlessly reported on a letter he wrote to an atheist, and made much hay over an interview given by the Vatican’s new Secretary of State (the media was apparently under the impression that Pope Francis is a very clever ventriloquist, and he was the one talking while the new Secretary’s mouth was moving – at least, that’s what they reported).
A common refrain I’m observing in the comboxes of various Catholic bloggers lately, when said blogger discusses one of these media reports, goes something like this:
“The Pope needs to stop making remarks like this! They’re too easily misunderstood! No one should have to write an article after the fact explaining what the Pope actually said/meant. The Pope needs to deliberate for hours on end before so much as opening his mouth! Every word must be crafted with the utmost perfection so that the media doesn’t get the wrong idea!” etc., etc.
And, my favorite:
“This kind of thing never happened when Benedict XVI/John Paul II was Pope!”
To these people, I respond:
Really? That’s some pretty amazing selective memory you have going on there. Granted, I’ve only been Catholic for the last ten years, but I remember:
The Condom Kerfuffle, in which the MSM proclaimed that Pope Benedict said condoms were perfectly okay for everyone to use (when he actually said that in certain situations, the use of a condom could indicate that someone was trying to act in a moral fashion by not spreading disease, and that trying to act morally could be a good first step on the road to repentance).
Pope Benedict’s speech at the University of Regensburg, in which (according to the media) the Pope said that Mohammed was evil incarnate and all Muslims were going to hell. (The Pope later explained that his words had been misunderstood by Muslims.)
The publication of Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate, in which the MSM announced that the Pope attacked capitalism as always evil in any circumstance and wholeheartedly supported the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was, according to the media, Pope Benedict’s last ditch attempt to revive a dying church by resurrecting a dead language.
John Paul II’s release of Dominus Iesus in 2000 spawned dozens of newspaper headlines (one of which I remember seeing in my college newspaper) proclaiming that “the Pope says non-Catholics aren’t really Christians!”
In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, John Paul II stated unequivocally, “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren […] I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (emphasis mine). Seems pretty straightforward, but the MSM headlines in response? “Pope’s words about women’s ordination spark debate” or similar.
I’m sure I could list hundreds of examples dating back decades, if not centuries, about how the media flagrantly and deliberately misrepresents a pope’s statements, leading to a need for the Vatican et al to issue a clarification. This is not a new phenomenon. The media does not exist to tell the truth – it exists to make people rich. Juicy headlines sell newspapers and garner millions of website hits, which generate revenue. “Pope Reiterates 2,000-year-old Teaching of the Church” doesn’t make money; “Pope Declares that All Atheists Go to Heaven” does. Truth has nothing to do with it, and this type of misrepresentation for personal gain is something that’s been happening as long as the papacy has existed.
Indeed, St. Peter himself could have been speaking about the mainstream media when he said, “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.” (2 Peter 2:1-3)
Of course, in every combox you find at least one person lamenting that the current Pope is destroying the Catholic Church. One example:
“This is doctrinal immodesty, if I may use the phrase. Rather than clothe the precious doctrine of the Body of Christ in garments of sobriety, modesty and Prudence, the truths of the Church are being sold away [by Pope Francis, presumably] cheaply to the moral perverts and enemies of Christ.”
I’m very curious what the commenter in question would have had to say about some of the Church’s earlier Popes:
- Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.
- Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
- Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who “sold” the Papacy
- Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy
- Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.
- Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.
- Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors’ reserves on a single ceremony
- Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
(The preceding examples are taken from E. Chamberlain’s book “The Bad Popes,” as summarized by Wikipedia.)
We once had a Pope who was murdered while engaging in the act of adultery – and the Church survived! After that, can anyone honestly believe that the Church will be utterly decimated and destroyed simply because the current pope made statements about atheists that were deliberately misconstrued by the media in order to boost ratings?! Perhaps the Holy Spirit is insulted by the implication that His protection of the Truth was considered so weak and ineffective.
So please, fellow Catholics, the proper response when reading a MSM headline about the Pope changing a long-held doctrine of Catholicism is not panic or rage or despair. Rather, it’s a yawn, an eye-roll, and a resigned sigh – as well as a realization that we’re once again called upon to engage in the new evangelization for the sake of the Kingdom in the realm of social media and among our friends and family.
958 thoughts on “Pope Francis Has Single-Handedly Destroyed Catholicism”
The Muslims will go to hell if they have read the teachings of Jesus and they have refused to believe them.
Judging the state of anyone’s soul is above my pay grade.
Pope Francis speaks in the common language of our times. As Catholics, we wonder about some of the connotations. Let us not forget he is a man – a deep common sense and compassionate man. As Catholics we are free to take in what he says and ponder what is behind what he is saying. Perhaps many have more questions than they would like to have about his utterances but we must remember he is not speaking ex cathedra in a solemn way where we must accept what he is saying as doctrine.
Jacque Maritain, one of the last great philosopher who perhaps will be designated as a doctor of the church in years to come, says God can use any means He wants to save the world. He does not necessarily have to just use the so called Divine Order of Things but perhaps God is waiting for us to get the natural order more in sync with the Divine. Pope John XXlll, opened the windows of the church through Vatican 2 but it seems like we were not ready for it. There was nothing wrong with Vatican 2 but apparently the people were not ready to live the ideal life on earth according to Vatican 2. Human nature has a way of playing games.
It is obvious, the people need to find ways to clear the path and spread their day of worship into the work week. As an advocate for workers dignity, I explore the latent response of religion and philosophy to the global economy. Free trade economics is a mess where we allow human nature to avoid – doing unto others as you would have them do to you. We are putting the cart before the horse in talking about a world religion. So, I will let Pope Francis sort out the counter points knowing that there is only one true church even though other people of good will can be saved. Cardinal Newman said we must all follow our conscience even if that conscience is ill-informed.
Was Pope Francis was inspired by another St Francis ? at Ray Tapajna LInkedin Articles or at http://tapsearch.com/therationale-jounal/id7.html
I have read a bit about the scandalous popes. But if we go back to the NT and imagine say that Peter and Paul had encountered a church leader like one of these popes – surely they would have excommunicated them and kept them out of the church warning fellow christians about them.
Perhaps. But then again, Peter denied Christ 3 times and he went on to lead the Church.
But Peter repented and was shattered by his failure when he was sifted but only momentarily he quickly returned in a few days.
And later on in Acts, Paul had to chastise Peter for teaching wrongly.
So does this mean that Pope’s can be chastised if Peter was the first Pope.
Peter said he was just a fellow elder.
Perhaps it’s time to understand the true tenets of Christianity and accept that Pope Francis is doing nothing more than simply being a Christian. This is not about Catholic dogma but instead about following the teachings of Jesus.
Following the teaches of Jesus to their fullest extent means being Catholic, so I agree with you!
since the beginning of time of catechism , the only thing that has happen for humanity is suffering,humiliating,destruction,trickery,deceit, lies and genocide.Why is this happening? why did this happen? Why did your god made this possible.
Well the damn truth is that god did not make this happen. this is the work of ignorant human beings to control through power and eventually create one world religion.
There is a false church that’s planning salvation through peace of the middle east. The manifestation of the end of the world!
We want our fundamental rights back. We want our souls back. we want peace for all humanity.This is the only way we will ever reach true freedom.
And it needs to happen NOW.
http://www.manataka.org/page155.html
— http://www.nyym.org/?q=doc_of_disc_factsheet
http://6thsunridaz.com/indigenous-mexica-teachings/500-years-of-resistance-by-daniel-osuna/
http://www.nickgier.com/050708_Christian_Conquest.pdf
I am trusting the HOLY SPIRIT to do the rest of getting into the peoples mindd what the pope really meant. We should not be alarmed. Let the HOLY SPIRIT takes over. The pope is being USED in a most incredible way like no other. Yes he does not speak the language well so he cannot use terms to be understood but so are most of the stories we read in the bible if each of us had to interpret it on our own its hard for anybody to grasp..
Good job.
Such a headline sounds like it was written by a gossip magazine writer. The next headline is “Pope Francis: I was abducted by aliens”
I never rely on headlines but by what Pope Francis’ actual words were. Francis is bringing the Catholic Church and the Catholic Community back to what Jesus Christ taught. People are coming back to the church because of Pope Francis. I know people who have said they would never go back that are now back at home all because of Pope Francis.
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 (“Feed my sheep . . . “), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter . . . “).
Most of these posts appear to be from closed minds either way.
What is needed is to talk to each other condescendingly. Our only source of
truth as scholars say is the New Testament which is a 98% reconstruction
of the original autographs of the Apostles.
Even Jerome used it and the LXX to translate his Vulgate. We must
use it to determine what a text says before we can extrapolate what it means.
That is the process Paul advised Timothy in 2 Tim 2:15. The Greek word
for “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” is “ortotomunto” = cut it straight.
The first word means, “Make maximum effort.”
There is only one verse Romanism claims to use to prove its
continued existence and that is Matthew 16:18 (Google). If we can show by
an analysis of Jesus words said that he would build his church on himself as its
chief cornerstone then, that church should be identified as a fraud and has no
foundation. Research 61years.
Second book, “Counterfeit Church” free on request (263 pages).
Pingback: Celebrities Behaving Badly: The Popester Is No Dopester | Kibbitz Corner
Interestingly, St. Faustina
> wrote in her diary that her “worst day of suffering”
> where she felt as if she was in Gethsemane (where Jesus was
> betrayed by Judas) was the SAME EXACT DAY POPE FRANCIS WAS
> BORN. She writes:
>
> ” December 17, 1936. I have offered this day for priests. I
> have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly
> and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to
> suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy
> Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the
> bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane.”
I think Sr. Faustina suffered so much bitterness and betrayal
on that day (12/17/1936) because, unknown to her,the False Prophet
was born somewhere on that day.
It is also the day Pope Francis was born.
What a marvelous coincidence!
Developer
It is indeed! How wonderful that St. Faustina seemed to know how our Holy Father would be attacked and vilified on the day he was born. St. Faustina, pray for our Holy Father, Pope Francis!
Really hard to know what Pope Francis intends to say and do because I really wonder if even Francis knows what is behind his words and actions. Looking for a pattern, a theological current, an agenda may just be pointless. After great men like John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Francis just seems like the genial, slightly dotty old uncle whom everyone loves and the rest doesn’t matter. And that is OK. Not every pope needs to be profound and knowledgeable. The Lord bless Pope Francis, as Vicar of Christ he may be God’s sign that we need to laugh more. Since we have been given a clown pope, we need to be grateful and stop griping or arguing about it. On with the show!.
I think, if anyone has come close to destroying the Catholic Church it would be Benedict. I am not saying he destroyed it because no one mortal has that ability unless we allow it. I am saying that if a pope can just walk away then a portion of the foundation of the church is no longer solid. (If he left because of a mental issue and could not possible do the job then the people should be or should have been told that reason and that would be acceptable but other than that, no matter what kind of burden it becomes, you carry the cross you are given).
Well, popes have had the ability to resign for centuries, and Pope Benedict is not the first pope to resign. And yet, the Catholic Church has stayed strong. Interesting, isn’t it?
Amusing article, Joanna. I must say, it does take a bit of stability and intelligence to keep the Church, the Pope, bishops etc. in perspective. Your article made me laugh, and yet instilled a bit of calm in all the noise of the media concerning the pope.
Pope Francis is garbage. Totally Jew controlled puppet pope. He should be hanged, honestly.
Francis is wonderful because other popes were worse? Sure, JPII and BXVI were controversial, but usually for standing up for orthodox Catholicism in no uncertain terms. Yes, they had some odd moments when orthodox Catholics were confused by what they said or did, but those were few and far between. It is the repeat blunders by this new pope, so many in just a little over a year, that has many wondering. Now, he concelebrates the Mass with a pro-homosexualist activist priest who is arguable already under automatic excommunication. Francis also loves to bash free market economics without balancing his statements with criticisms of statist economics which usually causes even more poverty and general human misery. Dismissing people’s concerns won’t make them go away, not as long as Francis is still pope and we sit upon the edge of our seats awaiting the next bizarro actions or words from our wack-a-doodle pope.
No, Pope Francis is wonderful because he is loving and pastoral and does not deviate from Church doctrine. Are you saying that the pope should never celebrate Mass with sinners? If that’s the case, no pope ever should celebrate mass.
MSM is NOT a place to read, if you are a serious person.
Let’s pray that his (can be an organization) wounds (as a metaphor not literally or physically) will heal after all. Sometimes when people dig pits for each other it is equivalent that they do it against themselves. Many people are looking for Jesus for money, wealth and power in order to serve them. It is allowed so they can demonstrate themselves to society and how they treat society.
Let’s pray that his (can be an organization) wounds (as a metaphor not literally or physically) will heal after all. Sometimes when people dig pits for each other it is equivalent that they do it against themselves. Many people are looking good for Jesus for money. It is allowed so they can demonstrate themselves to society and how they treat society.
There is a difference between believing that all in Heaven are Catholic…that is they live in truth… and in believing that all in Heaven were practicing Catholics in their temporal life.
The Holy Spirit leads all to the truth and to a good life. Jesus comes to many people in His many qualities…Counselor, truth, mercy, compassion, beauty, solidarity, magnanimity. God has other names throughout the Bible and Jesus exhausts every path to save the human soul. Heaven is full of surprises!
Good work Joanna.. may our lord’s spirit fill you with his wisdom so that you can share & guide many to light
The Philippines MSM and high-profile progressive Catholic personalities extensively quoted Pope Francis in order to uphold the Philippines RH Law, which mandated government distribution of contraceptives, including abortifacient ones, for free, and which provided penalties for those who refused to take part in or abet the Law’s provisions. Those Bishops, priests, and laity who voiced opposition were overwhelmed by the media blitz. Their claims that the Holy Father’s words were being taken out of context looked rather feeble under the tsunami of papal quotes. The Philippines Supreme Court finally struck out the Law’s opening to abortion, and reaffirmed conscientious objection rights. But it was devastation on a spiritual scale equivalent to Typhoon Haiyan. Worried Filipino Catholics now expect the push for a Divorce Law to take advantage of this pontificate. And if the upcoming Extraordinary Synod turns out in the way that they fear, they see no hope of resistance to it.
You mean the media misquoted the Pope to advance their own agendas?? What a shock!
*The massive amount of Novus Ordo Heretics have jointly brought “Catholicism”, aka Christendom, to its knees.
Sorry to hear that you feel the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. Are you an atheist now, since you believe Jesus was a liar?
I think you’re confused Ms. Wahlund. Would you rather have me an atheist than a critic of the rampant heresy at the huge majority of Novus Ordo Masses?
Can you explain to me why you support the inferior Mass over the superior one? Do you agree with Pope Francis persecuting the FFI for their orthodoxy, because they threaten his heretical leftist beliefs? Do you believe every pope has been perfect and one is not Catholic unless they say so?
Why bother criticizing any Mass if Jesus was a liar? Doesn’t that mean that He was not God (since God does not lie) and that Catholicism is a sham anyway?
Can you quote Church teaching (say, a papal encyclical) stating that the Extraordinary Form is superior to the Ordinary Form? I wasn’t aware that was a teaching of the Church. For the record, I’m a both/and Catholic – my personal opinion is that they are both excellent forms of the Mass when celebrated properly and reverently. I don’t think that one is inherently superior than the other.
I’m quite offended that you’re calling Jesus a liar. The fact that heretics at Novus Ordo Masses disobey Christ does not make him a liar. Christ our Lord and the Holy Spirit gave us the perfect Mass, through the work of faithful Catholics through the ages.
The Novus Ordo Mass is a product of the narcissism of the Sexual Revolution and all the bad Catholics who participated in it and thus is filled with irreverent practices, which is why it is inferior to the Mass of the Saints. (To use one of my favorite Americanisms: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!)
I’m not calling Jesus a liar; you are. I think that Jesus told the truth when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. You are calling him a liar, because you are insisting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church.
What do you think of my quote from Benedict XVI, above? Is he a heretic too?
You’re putting words into my mouth Ms. Wahlund. The Church has always been afflicted with heresy, that doesn’t mean the gates of Hell have prevailed against it. Did the saints and faithful Catholics who overcame the Arian Heresy also not believe in Jesus because they wanted to rid the Church of heresy?
You said, above, “The massive amount of Novus Ordo Heretics have jointly brought “Catholicism”, aka Christendom, to its knees.” That sure sounds like you’re saying that Catholicism has been destroyed by “Novus Ordo Heretics.” I don’t recall any of the Church fathers saying that the Arians brought Christendom to its knees.
So to you, being brought to one’s knees and being destroyed completely are the same thing?
And, yes, many great saints and orthodox Christians believed that the Church has been brought to its knees at several points in its history. The Holy Spirit is what lifts it back to its feet, by destroying heresy when the orthodox come together to rid the Church of it.
Yes, that’s what the idiom means. See here: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bring+to+knees
You’re using a faulty resource.
Idioms
12.
bring someone to his / her knees, to force someone into submission or compliance.
The Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed., is a faulty source? Why do you say that? And where is your definition from, given that you failed to cite your source?
Could it possibly be that your source is the one that is faulty? Do you think that is within the realm of possibility?
Here is another: 1. reduce someone or something to a state of weakness or submission.
I can’t find your reference. The only dictionary I see giving this faulty definition is “The Free Dictionary”, which seems to have quite a lot of faulty modern definitions. People don’t take language seriously anymore and think whatever they want something to mean, that’s what it means, especially if they put it on a website.
It seems quite illogical to suggest that I would be destroyed by being brought to my knees. I have been brought to my knees on several occasions and I’m still here!
You need to actually follow the link. That’s how citations work.
bring somebody/something to their knees
to destroy or defeat someone or something Sanctions were imposed in an attempt to bring the country to its knees. The strikes brought the economy to its knees.
See also: bring, knee
Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006. Reproduced with permission.
Given that the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary contains this definition, it can hardly be considered uncommon. You may want to rethink your usage of it, and use either a different idiom with a less problematic meaning or simply use clearer language.
You’ve lost it. Destroying someone means to obliterate them, blow them up, put them to death. I’m sorry if you found a few bad dictionary entries (that’s not hard to do these days), but that doesn’t change the fact that “bringing to one’s knees” means to stop someone or something from moving forward by force.
Anyway, this was a meaningless debate. The point is that Pope Francis is encouraging heretics and persecuting the orthodox (we have yet more proof of that now).
“There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.” – Pope Benedict XVI, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
But I suppose you think he is a heretic too?
I think BXVI rightly thinks that it’s better to have heretics near to orthodoxy than further away from it (i.e. that there should be a “beginner’s Mass” or a “Protestant-friendly Mass”). I agree with him. I’m not trying to ban the Novus Ordo Mass. What’s utterly insane is that heretics are trying to ban the Mass of the Saints.
That’s a very interesting interpretation considering that BXVI said nothing of the kind about the OF in his quote or the letter in its entirety. Can you give me a quote from BXVI where he sais the OF is a “beginner’s mass” or a “Protestant-friendly mass,” or a mass suited only for heretics? Because the beginning of the letter quoted above also has this:
“In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”
Do you disagree with him in that the OF and EF are a twofold use of the same rite?
Of course he’s going to be more diplomatic than me about it. I think they’re equally valid and that the Mass of the Ages is superior. If we receive Christ’s body and blood, we’re participating in the most important miracle in the universe, no matter how much humans mess up the liturgy. I think it’s entirely up to Christ which Masses he blesses with his presence and that he will bless Novus Ordo Masses which are reverently celebrated. That doesn’t change the fact that one is superior and one is inferior.
(For the record, I think the Byzantine and other rites are as beautiful and perfected as the traditional Latin Rite Mass. Only the Novus Ordo Mass is Protestantized and most often irreverently celebrated.)
But there is nothing at all in the text — or in any of his writings — to indicate that he believes that the EF is inherently superior to the OF, as you do.
You can definitely prefer the EF to the OF. Even if you think that one is inherently superior than the other, that’s your prerogative. But it’s definitely bordering on hubris to claim that it is settled fact or Church doctrine that the EF is “inherently superior” to the OF. Benedict XVI doesn’t think so and he is a huge proponent of the EF.
I’ve been going to OF masses my entire Catholic life (my confirmation was 11 years ago today!), along with the occasional EF mass. There have been a few OF masses that I thought could stand to have a little *more* reverence, but that weren’t outright irreverent. But then I went to an EF low mass once that, while celebrated perfectly as far as I can tell, was very hard to follow because I was wrangling several small children at the time. I had no clue what was going on (couldn’t follow along in the Missal because of the child wrangling) and the priest was speaking so low I couldn’t hear him. (BTW, if you’re ever in my neck of the woods, check out http://www.phoenixlatinmass.org).
Perhaps if you go to more than a couple of them, you’ll begin to understand them. The mystery of a language that is not your native tongue can be a great grace. Furthermore, Latin truly makes us a universal and unified church.
BXVI only celebrated Novus Ordo Masses when he was forced to as pope. That should tell you something. Of course he’s not going to offend Catholics he hopes to bring further up and further in, so to speak, by telling them that they could be going to a better Mass.
There are plenty of Catholics being accepting towards heretics and apostates. It can’t hurt to have a few of us tell the truth even when it’s painful!
Okay, help me out here. Please provide a quote from BXVI where he says the EF is “Inherently superior” to the OF. Perhaps you can even write him a letter asking for his opinion.
I’m sure BXVI prefers celebrating the EF. No surprise there. But having a preference and stating as fact that one is inherently superior than the other are not the same thing. I prefer the OF but I don’t think that it is inherently superior to the EF.
Are you saying that the Holy Father Emeritus sacrificed truth on the altar of non-offensiveness? That’s really strange because he has never shied away from promulgating difficult teachings before, even when they offended people.
JoAnna, you appear to be missing the point entirely. One can be immoral and still remain Catholic – as were the popes you list. But one cannot be a heretic and remain Catholic – as is Frannie the Funky Faith Guy. This is made clear in numerous infallible papal teachings. See for example Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, or Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum, which latter states: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. ‘No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).”
John, that’s not true. If one is baptized Catholic, one always remains a Catholic by virtue of his/her baptism, which leaves an indelible mark on one’s soul. One may be a dissenting Catholic or a non-practicing Catholic, but they are still a Catholic — just as those who are excommunicated are still Catholic. Benedict XVI remarked upon this when he issued a motu propio stating that even baptized Catholics who no longer identify as Catholic are still bound by canon law to observe the Catholic forms of marriage: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html
Calling the Holy Father “Frannie the Funky Faith Guy” is very disrespectful, by the way. Dislike the man all you wish but have respect for the papal office.
JoAnna,
Thank you for your comment.
On what authority are you *contradicting* Pope Leo XIII?
1. Canon 188.4 makes clear a public heretic incurs latae sententiae excommunication – outside Catholic communion and alien to the Church; it bases this on Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559.
2. By your logic Martin Luther was Catholic after he was anathematized and indeed everyone who is baptized is a Catholic because the pre-Vatican II Church declared sovereignty only over the baptized.
3. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, #22, 1943: 22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
In other words, your entire position, JoAnna, is refuted on multiple counts by Pope Paul IV, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius XII. Your position is alien to authentic Roman Catholic dogma.
So again – on what authority are you *contradicting* the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church founded by Christ and His Apostles?
I’m not the one contradicting the Magesterium, unless you believe that Benedict XVI was a heretic too?
The doctrine has developed since the time of St. Augustine and Leo XIII. No one can remove the mark of baptism indelibly placed on their soul. People can excommunicate themselves from the Church by their actions but they still remain Catholic by virtue of their baptism, even if they are not allowed to partake of the Sacraments.
Yes Benedict XVI was an heretic also, just like his predecessor JPII and Paul VI and John XXIII…
You truly embody the Vatican II sect typical adherent.
But it’s really irrelevant as Pope Francis is not a heretic, nor has he promulgated any heretical teachings.