"Francis has been totally orthodox..can only be faulted by faulty reading"

"LifeSite is very credible, and far more credible than you could ever hope to be. Just because otherwise good folks deny the obvious and cancel a subscription, it does not validate your sprouts attack on them, it just makes the more ignorant of the facts.

I dismiss the views of anyone who attacks the fine, verifiable work of LSN, and question their obvious agenda. Thanks for placing more nails in your rhetorical coffin."

Lifesite News do wonderful work with prolife issues but when it comes to reporting on the Pope they do not report fairly or accurately. I have checked the original sources myself against their claims and found they had quoted out of context. I am saddened by this and wish it wasn't true but the facts don't lie.

 

Thank you Brian..I think we just got off on the wrong foot. I actually meant listening to the Pope regarding his teaching on faith and morals. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors...the magisterium of the Church... "He who hears you hears me" Luke 10:16, and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" Matt. 18:18

Christ promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" John 16:13. That promise guarantees the Church will never fall away from his teachings Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15. This does not guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example.

 

Bless your heart Glenn.

I agree with the other members.. your site is wonderful!

 

Wow a spiritual intellectual

Lets see where it leads

Brother al

 

Thank you for your welcome Yellowcoffecup.

 

The prefect of the CDF said that if Pope Francis' exhortation “had wanted to eliminate such a deeply rooted and significant discipline, it would have said so clearly and presented supporting reasons.”

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...the-divorced-and-remarried-absolutely-intact/

 

Rude.

Some thoughts are better kept to yourself.

 

Now if you disagree with the Pope and his latest encyclical you become a Protestant. Much like anyone who does not vote for Hillary Clinton this October is a misogynist. By your logic I could call you an atheist because you do not believe in Absolute Truth.

The Office of the Pope and the Magesterium are to expound and protect the CDF. They do not have the ability or right to look at a blue sky and call it red. They can't tell us Gravity only applies to certain objects. Gods Laws are not for men to tamper with. When men tamper with Gods laws, they treat His laws as if they were not absolute. This is called Relativism, and Amoris Letitia is rampant with it.

Speaking of ignoring subjects, have you refuted any of the subject matter in the letter to the cardinals yet? Didn't think so, typical modernist... Lots of talk and no substance.

 

There is no relativism once our souls leave our bodies.

 

That is why you are ignored...your arrogance dosn't match your intellect. There is no reason to call people names. If you would like to discuss these issues...then address your concerns one at a time. Not agreeing with Our Holy father... is not the issue. Causing people to say our Holy Father is a heretic and creating a reason to leave the church is a bigger issue. And the way to justify your assumptions is by stating it is material heresy...is grossly mistaken. Our Holy Father has knowledge of what he is saying. Therefore, it cannot be material heresy. It is your right to disagree with the pope but to cause discord and distrust is not Catholic. From reading the posts niether david or i are modernist. But my issue with Brian was the constant spammimg that our Holy Father is changing church doctrine. Those were all assumptions or better said speculations. If the document our holy father has approved leaves room for interpretation. That does not mean it will create new doctrine...but it might leave some room for debate. There is nothing wrong with debate. That is how the church was created, as well as how the conversion process takes place. So, if you would like to have a possitive debate, then please ask away. But if you are going to attack and talk down to me...then i will continue to ignore you.

Your friend,
Brother al

 

That is just such an extraordinary statement to make!

The CDF was created and exists to SERVE the Magisterium. If the Magisterium eventually decided that the CDF needed to be replaced by a better structure then it could and should do so.

 

Hi Sh,

I am still having problems with this site. It's very slow..also an error message keeps popping up. Can I ask you about this cardinals letter, rather than me going to find it as this is very slow? I don't have problems anywhere else, so not sure what's wrong.

God Bless

 

Thanks John..I access the site usually through a post sent to my email account.

 

I've started reading the document that was sent to the Cardinals. It would be nice if we can discuss this between us in a calm manner, as St Peter tells us, with gentleness and respect. 1 Peter 3 15

AL 156.  "Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected. This includes all improper interpretations of the passage in the Let-ter to the Ephesians where Paul tells women to “be subject to your husbands” (Eph 5:22). This passage mirrors the cultural categories of the time, but our concern is not with its cultural matrix but with the revealed message that it conveys. As Saint John Paul II wisely observed: “Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband… The community or unity which they should establish through marriage is constituted by a reciprocal donation of self, which is also a mutual subjection”.162 Hence Paul goes on to say that “husbands should love their wives as their own bodies” (Eph 5:28). The biblical text is actually concerned with encouraging everyone to overcome a complacent individualism and to be constantly mindful of others: “Be subject to one another” (Eph 5:21). In marriage, this reciprocal “submission” takes on a special meaning, and is seen as a freely chosen mutual belonging marked by fidelity, respect and care. Sexuality is inseparably at the service of this conjugal friendship, for it is meant to aid the fulfillment of the other."

Document......i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria. ii). Prava, perniciosa. Eph. 5:24: “As the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.” See also: 1 Cor. 11:3; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:1-5; Pius V, Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the sacrament of matrimony; Leo XIII, Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879): 389; Pius XI, Casti connubii, AAS 22 (1930): 549 (DH 3708-09); John XXIII, Ad Petri cathedram, AAS 51 (1959): 509-10.

 

Thank you for the advice John...I am definitely not computer savvy.

 

So, for my small intellect, what is the problem. Can you tell me what the arguments against this passage is.

Thank you,
Brother al

 

I don't see any problem, Al. John Paul II saw a mutual subjection of the spouses

John Paul 11 "The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5.22–23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a“mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5.21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5.25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual." (141 John Paul II Mulieris dignitatem..)