https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b...are-not-called-to-blind-obedience-to-the-pope Bishop Schneider: Catholics are NOT called to blind obedience to the Pope Kazakhstan Bishop Athanasius Schneider John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry February 17, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Asked about the confusion in the Church today stemming directly from Pope Francis and how the faithful are to respond, a prominent Catholic bishop has said Catholics do not owe blind obedience to the Pope, adding that blind obedience is characteristic of a ‘dictatorship,’ not the Church. Kazakhstan Bishop Athanasius Schneider, one of the most prolific voices in the Church today seeking to defend the Catholic faith from anti-life and anti-family distortion, made the remarks in an interview with Rorate Caeli and Adelante la Fe. “As Catholics,” he said we have “to be submitted, (canonically) I mean, to the Pope, to the Vicar of Christ to accept his authority, to have respect for him, to pray for him, and to have a supernatural love for him.” But, he added, “this does not mean blind obedience; of course no[t] because we are not in a dictatorship.” “In a dictatorship yes, we have to obey blind or in the army.” Rather, Bishop Schneider said, “the Church is a family were discussion is possible” and also “correction with respect and with love.” When this is not possible, he added, “there is not a true atmosphere of Church spirituality.” It would be an “atmosphere of intimidation, of repression, of fear and this is not atmosphere of the Holy Spirit.” Bishop Schneider reflected on the example of St. Catherine of Siena, who, he noted, the Church recognizes as a saint and Doctor of the Church. While she always kept “a very deep respect towards the Pope and a deep love for him,” he said, she nevertheless “wrote several letters to him with very harsh” criticisms and correctly admonished him which she did “out of love for him.” “She wrote in a letter to the Pope, ‘Most Holy Father if you will not convert, please step down, renounce the papacy. I write these out of love for your person, for your eternal salvation, and for the Church.’” This letter and the attitude behind it, said Schneider, “is not schismatic, and in no way against the Pope.” Bishop Schneider counseled against making “the Pope an idol” or practicing “papal latria” or ultimately a “deification” of the Pope. He suggested that the current crisis in the Church may rectify a tendency toward papal latria experienced in the Church in the past hundred years. Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas quoting of St. Augustine, Bishop Schneder recalled that “when St. Peter made a correction to the first pope Peter and he made this publicly not privately.” “St. Augustine said Peter was so humble and so wise that he accepted this correction,” said Schneider. “He did not say, ‘You are Paul, you are against me. You are heretical. You are schismatic.’ No, he accepted this with gratitude and so should be the Pope in these days.” “St. Paul was public and even today, as he wrote this in his letter and his letter is inspired by the Holy Spirit for all generations until the end of the world, they will read the correction of the first Pope as word of God.” As Paul made the correction of the first Pope public, said Bishop Schneider, so too if Paul were alive today “he would use the Internet” as this would be similar to using his letters sent to all churches. “Therefore, there is no difficulty and problem to me that the four Cardinals published their public appeal to the Pope.” In conclusion, Bishop Schneider appealed to the faithful, saying “the most powerful means” to help with the crisis in the Church, “is not an appeal to the Pope or a kind of fraternal or filial connection.” The most powerful means to help the Pope that he can help the Church to overcome these confusions of doctrine in the Church is by means of prayer, by intense prayer and even of suffering of doing works of reparation, expiation for the Pope, for his soul, for his that he may receive from God the strength, the light to confirm all the entire Church in an unambiguous manner in the truth as did St. Peter and almost all his successors.”
Raymond Arroyo's show increasingly reminds me of CNN and the BBC! By that I mean they broadcast items that are purportedly 'investigative' but are no such thing. All three members of this discussion in this interview are critical of the actions of Pope Francis to varying degrees. None of them are positive about the new booklet by Cardinal Coccopalmerio. Consequently, the discussion serves no purpose other than confirming the beliefs of those who share the participants beliefs and misleading others who are trying to understand these matters. The Cardinal's booklet is clearly authoritative and clear in its interpretation of Amoris Laetitiae. It agrees with the Argentinian Bishops and Maltese Bishops advice, both of which have the Pope's indicated support. So why do so many keep calling for 'clarification'? The answer, of course, is because they do not like what they hear and they try to argue against it.
Their 'beliefs' are shared by Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, http://magister.blogautore.espresso...-speaks-who-responds-to-the-“dubia”-this-way/
Cardinal Mueller told the apologetics magazine Il Timone this month that “Amoris Laetitia must clearly be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church.” “It is not right that so many bishops/cardinals are interpreting Amoris Laetitia according to their way of understanding the pope’s teaching,” he said. “The Magisterium of the Pope is interpreted only by him or through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. … It is not the bishops who interpret the Pope.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/v...ishops-for-giving-contradictory-interpretatio
Yes, it is however a little unfortunate that the Cardinal has not followed his own advice! The Cardinal has expressed his own personal views on the matter but they are not the views of the CDF. Cardinal Muller's views are not irrelevant but they do seem to differ from those of Pope Francis. One wonders how long the Cardinal will feel comfortable in his role as head of the CDF. I suspect he has a very high regard for Pope Francis as a man but struggles with some of his beliefs. I personally believe he will not have been happy with the Pope's appointment of an envoy to Medjugorje for example.
The Pope has a moral duty to come out clearly on this issue and give true leadership. Get to grips with the crisis in the Church and answer the Dubia. Now I would be impressed if he did so.
Davidtlig you are at last revealing what you believe. It is beyond understanding that you accept the writing of cardinal Coccopalmerio above the writing of St JPII or Benedict XVI not to mention the holy gospel. Enough of symantics we do not need word games but truth. At least at last accept that what is proposed is a break with the traditional teaching always and everywhere taught. What the Cardinal/Malta etc propose is nothing but a break with the teaching on the sixth commandment a true geographical rupture. It is a sign of pride I fear that one in the face of overwhelming evidence refuses to acknowledge the shadow that is being cast upon the faithful. The lord stood before pilot when questioned what is truth. Silent surrendered suffering. United to the most holy will of the Father even unto death. My brother I assure you millions stand united with the truth. The truth of holy marriage. May the Immaculate heart of Mary strengthen us in this final battle. May our families stand before the enemy holding true to the will of the Father in the strength of his Holy Spirit adoring the Sacred Eucharistic heart of Jesus.
"For I hate divorce!" says the LORD, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty," says the LORD of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife." Malachi 2v16 What good is it if a man divorces his wife & takes another and forfeits his very soul?
Indeed, to all the above. I, Pope Francis, Cardinal Coccopalmerio, the Maltese and Argentinian bishops all agree!
AND ALL OF THE ABOVE AGREE TO AWARD THE DEADLY SINFUL BEHAVIOR OF DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE WITH THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS . THAT IS THE GREATER OF THE SIN. THAT IS THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION.
Scritpure clearly say's different 1 Corinthians 27: [26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [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 infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. Can't get anymore clear than that. And anyone knowing what scripture explicitly say's and does otherwise is guilty of the greater sin. This is why Saint John Paul said that man has no authority to receive when divorced and remarried, as it comes from scripture. You go ahead and follow the sinful Francis, I will follow the Saint John Paul II.
You are mistaken, Markinoz, on all these points. If you wish to understand the position of the Church on these matters then I recommend reading and studying the long article at: http://www.lastampa.it/2017/01/22/v...cy-embrace-j7Wra0gHXbMppRm8A7CsRL/pagina.html
Paul also speaks about the latter days when false doctrine will be preached and many with "itching ears" will follow. In his letter to Timothy I think. These are the times that try men's souls. A tightrope walk balancing charity and truth. The Narrow Way.
http://fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective949.asp The Pope’s Council of Advisors Declares that it supports “His Magisterium” But what about the Magisterium? Not so much. by Christopher A. Ferrara February 17, 2017 One of Francis’ first acts as Pope was to create a Council of Cardinal Advisors, commonly known as “C9”, to advise him on ecclesial affairs. The “advice,” however, appears to constitute little more than an echo chamber for whatever Francis wishes to say. To recall, the members of the Council are: Chilean Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa; Italian Bishop Marcello Semeraro, secretary to the Council; Indian Cardinal Oswald Gracias; German Cardinal Reinhard Marx; Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga; Italian Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello; U.S. Cardinal Sean O'Malley; Australian Cardinal George Pell; and Congolese Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya. All of the nine, with the exception of Pell, are radical progressives by any historical standard of Catholicism, whereas Pell, a “moderate” progressive, appears to be hanging on to his position by his fingernails. Meanwhile, he has already been removed from the Congregation for Divine Worship, which oversees the Church’s sacred liturgy, along with Cardinal Burke, the de facto spokesman for the four cardinals who have published the dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia. (Burke has just been shuffled off to Guam.) The C9 has leapt into action as opposition to Francis’ relentlessly progressive agenda mounts among concerned clergy and laity throughout the Catholic world, including protest posters plastering Rome and a spoof of L’Osservatore Romano wherein “Francis” answers ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to each of the four cardinals’ dubia. The C9 have issued an extraordinary “vote of confidence” in Francis, as if he were the head of a parliament, in the form of a Note published as part of the Vatican press briefing of February 13. The pertinent portion (my translation from the Italian) is quite striking: “In relation to recent events, the Council of Cardinals expresses full support for the work of the Pope, assuring at the same time its adhesion to and complete support of His person and His Magisterium.” “[In relazione a recenti avvenimenti, il Consiglio di Cardinali esprime pieno appoggio all’opera del Papa, assicurando al tempo stesso adesione e sostegno pieni alla Sua persona e al Suo Magistero.]” Note first of all the curious typography in the Italian original, not present in the Vatican’s own English translation: “His person and His Magisterium.” In contemporary Vatican usage the pronoun “his” is no longer capitalized even when used in reference to God. (See, for example, this section of the Catechism at the Vatican’s website.) But the traditional usage in reference to God suddenly reappears in reference to Francis! More significant is the reference to “His Magisterium.” Why not “the Magisterium,” which is the teaching office of the Church, not of a particular Pope? The Church does not have a different Magisterium with each Pope, but the same Magisterium to which all Popes are bound. Thus, on the very day he was installed as Pope, Benedict XVI declared his intention to subsume his personal ideas to the Magisterium of all time: “The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism….” So, again, why “His magisterium” rather than “the Magisterium”? The answer should be obvious at this point in the crisis provoked by what Antonio Socci has aptly termed “Bergoglianism”: the Magisterium and the teaching of Francis are not one and the same thing. That is why the four cardinals have posed their dubia. That is why alarm is spreading throughout the Church. That is why protest posters have appeared in Rome, along with the mock edition of L’Osservatore Romano. And that is why the Council of Cardinals has issued its “vote of confidence” in a Pope who is clearly eliciting a vote of “no confidence” from a growing number of the faithful. The liberal John Allen frets that “one could ask whether such a statement lends a significance to the anti-Francis blowback that heretofore was debatable. From the beginning, most commentators have been cautioning against exaggerating the dimensions of such resistance… By engaging it in such a high-profile way, it’s at least worth mulling whether the cardinals have inadvertently done it a favor.” Liberals like Allen, along with the members of the C9 echo chamber, would like to bury the “anti-Francis blowback,” which is just a pejorative for “Catholic defense of orthodoxy.” But as Our Lord said when the Pharisees demanded that He rebuke His disciples for praising His “mighty works”: “I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.” (Luke 19:40) That is, the truth of the Magisterium cannot be silenced even if the hierarchy fails in its duty to defend it. As for Francis and “His Magisterium,” in God’s good time it will pass from memory just as surely as the errors of Honorius, who was posthumously anathematized by an ecumenical council and a successor Pope, and John XXII, who was denounced for preaching heresy from the pulpit before he retracted his error on his deathbed. Both of these Popes, though validly elected, nonetheless transgressed the limits of the Magisterium. Much the same thing, but far worse, is happening today at this turning point in the history of the Church and the world. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
So, David, what will you argue on judgement day to plead your case" Adultery is not a moral sin? Those in adultery can receive the body and blood of Jesus You were loyal to a pope that was smarter than scripture, all the popes in 2000 years and smarter than Jesus himself? Your compassion for those in mortal sin, not truth, would save you? Other?
Nice post Maybe we shouldn't seek suffering but we should accept suffering. But we should seek little sacrifices to God daily. Just a thought...don't mean to butt in.
I knew a time would come when I would have to draw a line in the sand. In that time people would be openly and publically supporting heresy and apostasy promulgated by the Vatican , claiming that by supporting and upholding such heresy that they are somehow, 'supporting' the Church. Whereas in actual fact they are helping the heretics who have taken over the show in Rome dismantle and destroy the Catholic Church. We are in a period of purification for the Church some will follow the Masonic, Liberal, Satanic path of the false Rome to their true home in Hell beside their Father the Devil, the Father in Hell. Others will stick to the true Magisterium of the Church as taught from the beginning. But I am left in a dilemma here . While hoping to maintain free speech at what point does it become clear that I am giving public heretics and apostates a pulpit to encourage others to run the road to hell alongside them? I think we are getting very close to the point where I cannot allow heretical posts by open apostates. They are clearly going to hell if they walk this dark road; I cannot allow them to use this forum to drag others to hell along with them. 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. Mat 24:3-5,10-11 ..."Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Jesus answered, "Watch out that no one deceives you, for many will come in my name,.. At that time many will turn away from the faith... and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people." Jer 9:2-6 "...For they are all adulterers, a crowd of unfaithful people. They make ready their tongue like a bow, to shoot lies; it is not by truth that they triumph in the land. They go from one sin to another; they do not acknowledge me," declares the Lord. "Beware of your friends; do not trust your brothers. For every brother is a deceiver, and every friend a slanderer. Friend deceives friend, and no one speaks the truth... You live in the midst of deception; in their deceit they refuse to acknowledge me," declares the Lord. Jer 23:33-36 "When these people, or a prophet or a priest, ask you, 'What is the oracle of the Lord?' say to them, 'What oracle?..' You must not mention 'the oracle of the Lord' again, because every man's own word becomes his oracle and so you distort the words of the living God, the Lord Almighty, our God."
