WORST POPE EVER? FRANCIS’ ASSAULT ON ORTHODOXY FROM A TO Z

Well of course we could go round in circles for ever with this. I accept that the rejection of a specific point of guidance from the Pope does not necessarily mean a rejection of the authority of the Pope but the general 'flavour' of opposition to the Pope which often shows itself now on the internet is, I believe, effectively a rejection of papal authority as Fr Hardon speaks about in his writings.

In my opinion, at the heart of the rejection is a lack of desire to understand what Pope Francis is actually teaching. It is a kind of "I know I'm right" attitude that prevents any possibility of understanding another way of looking at things.

But I'll shut up now because I know I'm in a minority of one or two on this forum but I do think someoe needs to come in occasionally to put a different point of view to the endless criticisms of Francis.

 

View attachment 6584

 

Yes I agree that kind of opposition attitude is not good at all, specially not good for spiritual life, but it is better to speak up risking being labeled or seen as an opponent of the pope or a 'I Know I am right' person, than falling in a guilty mutism 'everything is alright'.

And sincerely I can humanly see that when the pope teaches something so contrary to what we have been taught, it is understandable that people will be on their guard or may even adopt a total attitude of rejection. I don't agree it is the path but it has happened before. Remember that when pope Honorious made peace with Arianism by resorting to ambuiguity, the catholic laity of Rome were so pist they would avoid the public baths because they did not want to be contaminated with the water the pope or his collaborators had touched (Arians by Blessed Newman).

We haven't got to that extreme yet. But thankfully, the Church has proven to withstand any tension or scandal and it will survive this one too.

 

Very well said.

Just for the record, I think it was Liberius who was treated like a communicable disease by Rome's faithful. Liberius was in bed with the Arians, Honorius with the Monothelites. Honorius was anathemised by a Church Council 40 years after his death for his failure to discipline heretics or contradict heresy, and one of his successors, Pope St. Leo 11, didn't give him much chance of having escaped Hell "because by his negligence he had fanned the flame of heretical dogma" http://web.archive.org/web/20080725031830/http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm. Honorius was another who believed in glossing over the Truth to foster unity with deniers of Truth.

Popes flirting with heresy never ends well.

 

davidtlig, two points need to be made as you speak on the writings of Father Hardon. First off, in the information you speak of his writings, you are not doing so in the light of the true magisterium of the papacy, which Father Hardon is speaking of. He in no way is alluding to the obedience towards a bad Pope who is teaching outside the faith.

This brings an obvious question, which is, where were all these clergy and laity with this new found love for the papacy during the reign of the popes since Pope Paul VI, starting with his encyclical on Humanae Vitae and the constant rejection of God's moral law against contraception? Where were they when Pope St. John Paul taught on the impossibility towards divorced and remarried receiving Eucharist in his encyclical on the family? This is the loyalty that Father Hardon spoke of. I would wager a bet, you could not find Father Bergoglio or most of his Jesuit collegues writings supporting any of these teachings on any of the popes documents since Humanae Vitae on sexually moral issues. This is why Father Hardon wrote extensively on defense of the papacy. My how the twisting of the light of truth is so popular today within the Pope Francis followers.

 

Thank you, it was pope Liberious not Honorious as you well said.

 

Bravo. Thank you.

 

My question for you, David, relates to the conflicting bishops' responses to Amoris Laetitia. Would Fr. Hardon correct the Malta bishops for their lax interpretation over the exhortation, or would he tell the Polish bishops they are too rigid? The reality of divergent responses connotes either confusion or disobedience on someone's part.

How does one best follow the Pope in this regard because the resultant disunity is not of God? (oops, 2 questions!)

Safe in the Barque of Peter!

 

Mario, until Fatima drew my attention to Fr Hardon's writings I knew nothing about him so I couldn't begin to speculate how he might have responded to the AL encyclical, to its varied responses, or to Pope Francis himself.

I would just say in response to the two issues you mention that they are all about interpretation of situations. This is why Cardinal Muller had no problem supporting Francis and the encyclical. I think the criticisms of Francis on this forum stem from contributors wanting their religion to be a very 'black and white' one.

The synods leading up to the encyclical had varied views and interpretations being expressed. That should not worry anyone but it clearly does worry some! When God presented the Ten Commandments to Moses and to mankind He was not presenting a legal document! When Jesus came 2000 years ago He came to fulfil the Law and to teach mankind how to follow it. He appointed the apostles to spread what He had taught. The teachings of the apostles, over the centuries, developed and were clarified and formalised into the written teachings we have today, best presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But again, that Catechism is not a legal document!

Pope Francis has not changed any doctrine but he has changed certain practices and behaviour which some people (cardinals, bishops, priest and laity) interpret as changing doctrine. People are free to take that view but I believe they are on dangerous ground when they insist their interpretation is correct and so proceed to criticize the Pope.

I don't view the resulting differences in interpretation of the encyclical as something which must lead to disunity. I view disunity as something of the heart. I believe we can remain united while disagreeing on various matters. This principle is at the centre of Christian Unity to which Jesus calls us strongly.

 

I just wish it actually were someone's interpretation and not the constant teaching of the Church and all the saints from St. Paul to St John Paul II on what is God's will for marriage and access to the Eucharist up to the publication of Amoris Laetitia.

'For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.'
2 Tim 4:3

 

A lot of mental gymnastics going on here. Pope Francis has not been so bold to change doctrine. He has just been undermining it and sowing confusion then attacking those who merely ask questions with black and white, rigid, orthodox straw man arguments and narratives.

 

It is your interpretation, Jarge, that the encyclical conflicts with long standing Church teaching. Some agree with you, others do not. The Pope does not agree with you. You prefer your interpretation to his. I trust the Pope's.

As for your scriptural quote, that time came long ago and continues to this day. But fortunately not from this papacy.

 

My interpretation, as you like to call it (Pope St John Paul II):

3. As I wrote in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, the divorced and remarried cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion since “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist” (n. 84). And this is by virtue of the very authority of the Lord, Shepherd of Shepherds, who always seeks his sheep. It is also true with regard to Penance, whose twofold yet single meaning of conversion and reconciliation is contradicted by the state of life of divorced and remarried couples who remain such.
...
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."
...
In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation. In these and similar cases it would be a matter of a tolerant and benevolent pastoral solution in order to do justice to the different situations of the divorced and remarried.

4. Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few Fathers of the Church and in some measure were practiced, nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the Fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the Church nor to determine her discipline. It falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei.

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).

...
6. Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good of these persons(10) as well as the common good of the Church, have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church's teaching(11). Pastors in their teaching must also remind the faithful entrusted to their care of this doctrine.

This does not mean that the Church does not take to heart the situation of these faithful, who moreover are not excluded from ecclesial communion. She is concerned to accompany them pastorally and invite them to share in the life of the Church in the measure that is compatible with the dispositions of divine law, from which the Church has no power to dispense(12). On the other hand, it is necessary to instruct these faithful so that they do not think their participation in the life of the Church is reduced exclusively to the question of the reception of the Eucharist. The faithful are to be helped to deepen their understanding of the value of sharing in the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, of spiritual communion(13), of prayer, of meditation on the Word of God, and of works of charity and justice(14).

7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one's own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.

8. It is certainly true that a judgment about one's own dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion must be made by a properly formed moral conscience. But it is equally true that the consent that is the foundation of marriage is not simply a private decision since it creates a specifically ecclesial and social situation for the spouses, both individually and as a couple. Thus the judgment of conscience of one's own marital situation does not regard only the immediate relationship between man and God, as if one could prescind from the Church's mediation, that also includes canonical laws binding in conscience. Not to recognise this essential aspect would mean in fact to deny that marriage is a reality of the Church, that is to say, a sacrament.
...
In pastoral action one must do everything possible to ensure that this is understood not to be a matter of discrimination but only of absolute fidelity to the will of Christ who has restored and entrusted to us anew the indissolubility of marriage as a gift of the Creator. It will be necessary for pastors and the community of the faithful to suffer and to love in solidarity with the persons concerned so that they may recognise in their burden the sweet yoke and the light burden of Jesus(19). Their burden is not sweet and light in the sense of being small or insignificant, but becomes light because the Lord - and with him the whole Church - shares it. It is the task of pastoral action, which has to be carried out with total dedication, to offer this help, founded in truth and in love together.

 

And yet, Jarge, an important Cardinal views things differently and don't fall into the trap of pushing him into an ideological category that maybe you don't agree with.

Here is a quote from a recent interview:

Schönborn is also, of course, a longstanding Benedict XVI confidant, his former student, and a close friend, as well as being the general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which came out 25 years ago under the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s supervision. (Schönborn was going on, after Limerick, to celebrate that event in Cork.)

Explaining in the academic seminar how Amoris flowed from St. John Paul II’s 1980 exhortation on the family, Familiaris Consortio - which had spoken of the obligation in truth to distinguish between different situations of the divorced and remarried - Schönborn said he had suggested to Benedict XVI that the two documents formed a “diptych,” meaning a painting made up of two interconnected panels.

https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017...orn-moral-theology-needs-principles-prudence/

​

 

An average 12 year old who has some basic language skills would be able to tell you that it is the complete opposite of what is in Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II expresses the idea this way: Catholics in illicit sexual relationships “are unable to be admitted [to Communion] from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.” The pope doesn’t say that they may not be admitted to Holy Communion, he says that they cannot. It is not a question of whether the Church should grant permission. The Church simply has no authority to do so.

Only a sinner who has boughten the lie in the garden of Eden would try and twist what our Holy Saint John Paul II taught.

 

If anyone has not read the messages from our Lady to Pedro Regis. We see the following warnings for some right here on MOG forum who have no ears to hear with.

7/2/17 "Many will embrace false doctrines as if they were true".
7/2/17 "Go forward in defense of truth. Always remember: The silence of the righteous strengthens the enemies of God".
7/4/17 "You are heading for a future in which men will embrace false doctrines and truths will be cast out".
7/4/17 "Many false teachers will spread throughout the world and will confuse even men and women of faith. Where there is half-truth, there is not the Church of My Jesus."
7/8/17 "Dear children, wicked men will act to confuse the Truth of the Gospel, but those who belong to My Son Jesus will not embrace what is false. Always stay with the truth. The Devil's innovations will deceive many, and My poor children will walk like the blind leading the blind. My Son Jesus is the Absolute Truth of the Father. Stay with Him and listen to the Teachings of the True Magisterium of His Church. Whatever happens, do not stray from the path I have pointed out to you".
7/10/17 "In the House of God there will be great discord, and many chosen to defend the truth will drink the bitter cup of suffering and persecution. Whatever happens, stay with Jesus. Do not retreat. Where there is half-truth, there is the enemy of God.
7/11/17 "Dear children, the Gladiators of Faith are in the Palace and will act against men and women who love and defend the truth. Whatever happens, stay with Jesus; accept His Gospel and embrace the Teachings of the True Magisterium of His Church".

 

Dear David
I understand your reluctance to accept even the possibility that something is wrong. My brother I take this opportunity before all the members of this blessed forum (Mary's lounge) to call you to the prayer of understanding. It is clear before all who have eyes to see and ears to hear that something has changed. Stating that it is a cause of disunity or in some way disloyal to the prayer of Jesus for unity is a play on words. St Paul himself rejected Peter in his behaviour towards the Gentiles and spoke up powerfully in Jeuruslem in the power of the Holy Spirit. This same spirit of whom unity in truth is the powerful fruit of Jesus his life his sacrifice and his glorious resurrection. I am a simple man father to five and a nurse working on my salvation in fear and trembling... I have grown tired of the endless debates. I have seen with my eyes and heard with my own ears contradictions subtle changes that damage the deposit of faith. I despair of your defence and attempts of "nothing to see here move along" engaging in less than charitable debate. My patron is the glorious st Ignatius and I practise daily the examen a prayer powerful in the discernment of spirits. I am shown frequently my poverty in love my lack of faithfulness to my crucified love crowned so pitifully in thorns. My prayer life in the spirit of St Ignatius has not led me to reduce the commandments to rules but see within them the pathway to life. Is God first in my life? Do I honour his holy name? Do I keep holy the sabbath day? My parents do I honour them?.... Moses was asked to-remove his shoes on Sinai as he was in the presence of God I am who am. Jesus removed his garments and washed the feet of the apostles. A contradiction? No my brother but a sign.. He loves us yes in truth and invites us to love even to lay down our life. I believe the holy ones within the church hierarchy are today laying down their lives even willingly. Accepting the the condemnation and rejection of large sections of the church. I wonder why those most vocal oversee the greatest loss in church attendance? Pope Francis is called by God the Holy One the Almighty one Immortal one to be the sign of unity the servant of servants. Let us pray for him for grave is his responsability. He alone will answer to God. Sr Lucia advised this was the decisive battle not because she was told directly rather the most holy Virgin advised the great Lord offered her as a final remedy. One last thought of a man who reads daily the forum but posts rarely( I f ind many of you my dear friends express my thoughts as if reading my heart) the lady of good success advised during the decisive battle he who should speak will fall silent. Often I ponder those words in my heart.

 

David,

We have probed each others views for some time and are obviously at an impasse. But I believe if the leaders of our Church follow the logic of your position, then other areas of teaching will quickly follow suit. The next one to fall will be the stand that homosexual inclinations are a disorder, followed by the claim that homosexual activity therefore does not violate natural law.

These fundamental changes are a consequence of rejecting the call of Christ to pick up our Crosses. The world has so infiltrated the Church, that the idea we have to live with the consequences of our fallen nature, our personal decisions, or the decisions and actions of others, is becoming anathema. This is why euthanasia is gaining ground so rapidly. Our culture despises pain and inconvenience and wishes to eradicate them. Where are the Catholics who willingly embrace the words from St. Paul:

Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

Our grandparents' generation of Catholics grasped this principle of offering it up, but it has literally vanished. My personal opinion is that Pope Francis has inched in this direction with his repeated use of the word, ideal, in Amoris Laetitia, rather than command. Such a shift allows our flesh to more readily assert itself. Our Precious Lord understood this tendency in the Garden when He warned Simon Peter, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak!" That is why St. Paul emphasized the high calling in Christ Jesus. In regard to the divorced and remarried, their decision to abide by the strict teaching of St. John Paul II concerning continence is not a legalistic choice, but one to be done " for the sake of his body, that is, the church."

Finally, the straw that will break the camel's back, however, will be the push for a false ecumenism which renders the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass invalid. I hesitate to endorse my timing wholeheartedly because Catholic prophecy indicates this grievous heresy will be the Abomination of Desolation during the reign of the AntiChrist. Are we on that precipice, yet?

Anyway, David, thank you for your honesty. If I am correct about the slippery slope I pray you will see the impending avalanche and change your mind.

Ps 119:149 Hear my voice in thy steadfast love; O LORD, in thy justice preserve my life. 150They draw near who persecute me with evil purpose; they are far from thy law. 151 But thou art near, O LORD, and all thy commandments are true. 152 Long have I known from thy testimonies that thou hast founded them for ever.

Safe in the Barque of Peter!

 

When you have a pope that believes "cohabitation (fornication) could be a real marriage", and you have followers who applaud this apostasy against scripture and the true magisterium of the church, you know they are part of the great diabolical disorientation that our Lady of Fatima said would come. If statements like this do not ring a bell of alarm, what will? If anyone is still riding the fence on whether our pope is for truth or his is twisting truth to appease a false mercy proclaimed by the world, then God help you, cause the deception coming will dwarf what we have been experiencing for the past 4 years.

 

I really wonder if Pope Francis believes there is such a thing as a sacramental marriage?

Sacraments are a rather 'rigid' means of gaining grace.