What would be the meaning of a "Jesuitical gobbledegook ", and how does it apply to the teaching of sound doctrine considering that Christ said that we should only respond with "yes" or "no" and that everything else comes from the evil one?
InVeritatem, you are very confused on some things. But I will go through all of your points in the order that you proposed. 1. Your claim that BXVI made changes to UDG in Normas nonullas because he knew he was about to resign is probably true. But the actual changes he made did not have anything to do with the "resignation" related provisions in the original UDG of JPII. And, you seem to suggest that I am denying that Canon 332.2 allows a Pope to resign. I said no such thing. Of course, Canon 332.2 allows a Pope to resign. What you fail to understand is that a papal "resignation" does not trigger a new papal election. Only "the death of the Pope" triggers a new election, according to UDG. 2. Yes, Normas nonnullas made minor changes that are not in the original UDG promulgated by JPII in 1996. However, the changes made by Normas nonnullas are not automatically incorporated into the original UDG document on the Vatican website, as you seem to suggest. You have to look at both documents and replace the earlier wording with the later manually. 3. Normas nonnullas, DID NOT change any wording in Sections 2 or 3 of the original UDG. Anyone can follow those to links in the previous sentence and confirm what I said is true. Please retract this false statement. Your subsequent reasoning seems to rest on this factual inaccuracy. However, to address your point directly regarding the wording in Section 3. Just because "resignation of the Pope" is mentioned in Section 3, those words in no way suggest that a "resignation of the Pope" creates a complete vacancy of the entirety of Apostolic See. If fact, those words logically require the opposite interpretation because Section 3 implies that the Apostolic See is not vacant "after the death or valid resignation of a Pope" which is precisely why Section 3 requires that the College of Cardinals continue to "defend these rights [of the Apostolic See]" even after a "death" or "resignation." It is beyond me how you can read Section 3 as supporting your thesis. It actually undermines it further. 4. Again, you are reading Section 77 incorrectly. The "vacancy of the Apostolic See" referenced there is an partial "vacancy," a vacancy of only a single office of the multi-office entity called the Apostolic See (as explained in Canon 361). Section 77 is saying that EVEN IF a partial vacancy occurs "the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full." Section 49 explains what the most important of these "dispositions" is: CHAPTER III THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION 49. "When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared, on the day appointed in accordance with the provisions of No. 37 of the present Constitution for the opening of the Conclave, the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican, or elsewhere, should circumstances warrant it, in order to take part in a solemn Eucharistic celebration with the Votive Mass Pro Eligendo Papa. This celebration should preferably take place at a suitable hour in the morning, so that in the afternoon the prescriptions of the following Numbers of this Constitution can be carried out." So, Section 77 supports my argument that EVEN IF a Pope "resigns," an election cannot be held until after "the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated." The primary reason for this is that "the Apostolic See" is not "lawfully vacant" (UDG, Section 37) until after the Pope dies. 5. Your last point about the Pope not being "subject to Canon Law" is just silly. The Pope must abide by Canon Law as it applies to him. And the existence of Canon 349 is obvious, since UDG is the core subject of our entire debate.
I find this discussion highly interesting. When I have more time, I will go through it. To me, the resignation of Pope Benedict and the relevant constitution represent very important topics in light of the current crisis of our Holy Catholic Church. I plan to read up on both of your views and on all others that I can find. One of the things that sets our forum apart from other so-called Catholic forums is that we have a high level of charity. Of course, there are sometimes disagreements and things get heated. But generally, there is much respect here. I love that. Many thanks and God bless!
I find the phrases "We have to make a human reality, build a different human reality..." very secular and masonic-sounding. That is what disturbs me the most. I take comfort in the first readings from the first letter of Saint John during the Mass readings this week. Saint John's writing style was surely one that I admire in that he called a spade a spade certainly didn't seem to be a parishioner of the Church of nice. Beloved: Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. Anyone who denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well. Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made us: eternal life. I write you these things about those who would deceive you. As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him. And now, children, remain in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not be put to shame by him at his coming.
Hola Basto, I viewed the videos, and while the Rabbi does say that the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, nowhere did he mention the antichrist. Which in Spanish would be anticristo. Where did he say anticristo? I'm referencing the statement you made above in post # 2341 : "This may shock some here, but in 2012, Tucho and Bergoglio applauded Jewish Rabbi Abraham Skorka when he publicly announced the future appearance of the Antichrist." However, to give this some context, during the Vatican Council II, Augustin, Cardinal Bea, under Pope John XXIII, was in charge of writing the document on interreligious dialogue, Nostra Aetate, In Our Tme: Nostra aetate: Opening the path to interreligious dialogue - Vatican News The conciliar Declaration Nostra aetate — approved by the Fathers of Vatican II and promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 28 October 1965 — marked an irreversible turning point in relations between the Catholic Church and Judaism, in the wake of the steps taken by Pope John XXIII. The fruit of a long and careful drafting process, it also significantly changed Catholicism’s approach toward non-Christian religions, and is considered a foundational text for dialogue with other religions. All the popes since Pope Paul have been referencing the concepts in Nostra Aetate. Nostra aetate (vatican.va) Thank you
The Rabbi stated that they await the coming of the Messiah, thereby, he denies that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, the messiah. "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son." 1 John 2v22
The early Church Fathers such as Hippolytus (a student of Irenaeus) taught that the Antichrist will be a Jew and a counterfeit of the true Christ. Antichrist will be born in Babylon and will come from the tribe of Dan–he is spoken of in Genesis 49:9 and Deuteronomy 33:22 as a lion’s cub and therefore cunning and deceptive. As a false redeemer, Antichrist will persuade the Jews that he is the Messiah.
Pope Francis “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings,” Take Pope Francis at his word - he means this, he believes this, all of his teachings reflect this.
Olá irmã, I am Portuguese, not Spanish... Pay attention to this sentence: Yesterday, when I walked from the car to my house, I got wet because I didn't have an umbrella. Where in the sentence did I mention the word 'rain'? Nowhere! You are very charitable in your opinion, but you are using the same type of arguments as those people who defend the approach of Amoris Laetitia and Fiduccia Supplicans have nothing wrong or contrary to the Catholic faith... And in fact, we all know that what these texts claim or intend to claim is that a man and a woman obstinate in an adulterous relationship can now receive Holy Communion, or that a priest can bless a set of two men who practice homosexual fornication. Rabbi Abraham Skorka is a prominent Jewish theologian and an international public figure, everyone present at this event at the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina knows that he does not accept that Jesus Christ is the True Messiah of God and is therefore referring to an alternative messiah, who can only be an antichrist. You and I and everyone watching this video know that as well or can find out very easily, it's not a secret...The point of disagreement here is whether a Catholic prelate or any Catholic in general can tolerate this type of anti-Christian speech at a Catholic university or even applaud it. I can't and I'm not going to discuss that with those who can tolerate it, I will remain charitably in our disagreement. God bless! In any case, Bergoglio was not yet Pope in 2012 when this event of the video was recorded, he was just the cardinal that many wished to be in Razinger's chair in Rome. Likewise, Tucho was not yet responsible for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he was just rector of the university and an irrelevant author of erotic literature. The interest of this video, which has been known to the public for many years, especially in the Hispanic world, is only to help us understand the historical context of the apostasy that currently affects the Catholic Church from the top.
Thank God; However, this does not nullify the scandal of a baptized Catholic denying a dogma of the Church and putting the salvation of millions of people at risk.
Gobbledegook is probably the wrong word to describe the word salad type of communication often associated with the Jesuits, although to my admittedly limited understanding it's a very apt word to describe paragraph no. 4 of the recent motu proprio issued by Cardinal Fernandez in response to the African pushback on blessings for couples in irregular unions. Now, Luan, my initial comment about Basto's video is what led to this exchange and there was nothing about Scalfari in the video. The only scandal I saw there was Basto's lead-in to the video. One part of the Rabbi's speech didn't sit well with me. It was the suggestion that good could come from setting aside our theological differences. That's fine for Jews but not for Catholics where the difference is denial of our theological belief that Jesus is the Messiah. Since it's in Jesus that we live and move and have our being, how can we expect good to come from setting it aside? Charity demands that we assume those applauding had no intention of setting aside what they profess to believe. Anyway, I'll try to explain what I think was happening in the Pope's meeting with Scalfari which I also think may stem from his Jesuit formation. I apologise in advance that this will be a long post. I also must admit that I am not well educated and that will be reflected in the wording I use, so please make allowances for that..... Scalfari waa a well known journalist in Italy. Converting him would have been a big boost in a country where the faith is rapidly waning alongside growing scepticism towards the Church. So, the Pope reached out to Scalfari. Now, imagine Pope Francis trying to use the gentle approach, telling Scalfari how it's the love and mercy of Jesus that sustains his faith. Scalfari responds with the standard "A loving God wouldn't condemn his beloved to eternal torment". The Pope, using Jesuitical word salad, tries to explain to Scalfari that ending up in Hell is a choice we make, but that's not what Scalfari chooses to hear. Rather, as he listens to the word salad, he's thinking "I have a scoop. The Catholic Pope agrees with me that there is no Hell and no eternal torment. I like this guy." Pope Francis, thinking progress can be made, disregards the scandal caused by Scalfari's report and persists with the meetings, probably hoping that the Holy Spirit is at work in Scalfari. Turns out that Scalfari wasn't converted but we don't know whether something of their exchange did touch Scalfari's heart in the final moments before his life ended. Only God knows. Now, if Scalfari was somehow saved in his dying moments, were the Pope's efforts worth it? If you were Scalfari, I reckon you'd say "well worth it, thanks be to God". For the rest of us, it's a toss-up whether the interactions and resultant scandal were appropriate for a Pope. For an ordinary priest, I would say a definite "yes". A Pope risking possible loss of souls from permitting an appearance of doubt re Church teaching? I'm not so sure but I'm not God. As to the Jesuits and the "meet them where they're at" approach to evangelisation, my guess is that it and their word salad is somehow connected to St. Pauls first epistle to the Corinthians, especially the first few chapters. Sadly, nowadays they often seem to skip over Chapter 6. Here's a link to 1 Corinthians. There's much in it that would benefit all of us if we spend some time reflecting on how we are progressing as we journey on the path to Salvation. https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/4
I frankly believe that above the sacred order to which Pope Francis belongs is the prerogative of Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, which demands clear and objective language for all the faithful. I would never imagine Saint Ignatius of Loyola using ambiguous language that calls into question the foundations of the apostolic creed. Furthermore, as I said previously, Pope Francis practically ratified the statements that Scalfari attributed to him about the existence of hell when granting the interview to the Argentine newspaper Perfil in 2023.
I agree with you that the faithful are entitled to clear language on Church teaching. The interactions with Scalfari weren't a case of the Pope teaching all the faithful. It was an attempt by the Pope to convert an influential Italian and the approach seems very similar to what Sr. Paul spoke about in 1 Corinthians. The Pope's Jesuit formation is part of who he is. Sometimes that works for the better (Cardinal Ladaria's "we can't bless sin" response to the dubium on blessing same sex unions). The "clarification" issued by Cardinal Fernandez is a better example of failure to use clear, unambiguous language in Church teaching. I don't think Fernandez is a Jesuit but evidently he has been under some very strong Jesuit influence.
Basto, read 1 Corinthians where Paul tells the people that they are not lacking in any gifts as they "wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed". Jesus is God. The literal meaning of Messiah is "anointed one". That's Jesus. The Rabbi hasn't yet received your gift of faith but hopefully the Holy Spirit will bring him home to the Church. Jesus is our redeemer as well as our Saviour. We are redeemed but only on the path to salvation until we draw our last breath. Belief (faith alone) is not enough. It's a Protestant heresy as is once saved, always saved. Jesus told us that not all who call Him Lord will enter Heaven. We are also warned against judging others and looking for the worst in them. I urge you to remove that video from the internet. I have made my position clear and won't be responding to any more comments. That's my last word on this. I wish you well.
It is baptism that is required for salvation. Jesus told his disciples to go forth - teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The catechism The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit". So we have a duty to proclaim this message of salvation to Jews and pagans by introducing them to the Logos, the Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity so that they be baptised and saved.
The greatest form of charity we can show towards someone is to warn about mistakes that attract eternal damnation, especially when a single person's mistake can lead millions to hell. I think that the fact that many convert "in secret" in the final moments of their lives does not nullify the preaching of the gospel; otherwise, we would fall into a universalist style of preaching since we don't know what happens in the final moments of each particular person. .
I've already posted a few times, but it's worth repeating that Pope Francis repeated his disbelief in eternal torment in an interview with the Argentine newspaper Perfil in 2023, while Our Lady of Fatima showed a vision of hell to the three shepherd children in a kind of visual catechesis that leaves It is very clear to any believer how terrible eternal torment is and how wide the path that leads to it is.
