Holy Father: If You Don't Agree, Then Just Get Out
#1

I am SO loving this! From Lifesite:


Pope suggests it’s best to be ‘honest’ and leave the Church if you don’t believe
HLI priest
by John-Henry Westen
Tue Aug 28, 2012 17:09 EST



VATICAN CITY, August 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In his Angelus address Sunday, [html]Pope Benedict XVI spoke of Judas’ betrayal of Christ, saying that Judas’ problem was failing to leave Christ when he no longer believed – a “falsehood,” said the Pope, “which is a mark of the devil.” [/html]


[html] “Judas,” said Pope Benedict, “could have left, as many of the disciples did; indeed, he would have left if he were honest. Instead he remained with Jesus. He did not remain because of faith, or because of love, but with the secret intention of taking vengeance on the Master.” [/html]

Vox Wrote:Nice! Pretty much straight-out calling these dissenters "Judases"!

According to Human Life International Rome Director, Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, the comments are very relevant to the current situation in the Catholic Church.  Msgr. Barreiro, who holds a doctorate in Dogmatic theology, told LifeSiteNews that “for those Catholics who cannot bring themselves to believe the formal teachings of the Church on life and family matters it would be more honest to leave the Church rather than betraying Her.”

But, he added, “We regret very much that the person is so inclined and we wish they would have a conversion to truly believe.”

Pope Benedict, in his remarks, drew a distinction between believing and understanding, noting that some disciples walked away from Christ because they did not believe. However, he said, even those who remained believed before they fully understood.

[html]The HLI Rome Director commented, “Intellectual difficulty is not disobedience.” He explained, “You might have teachings you find difficult to accept. However, (in those circumstances) it is virtuous to believe since you make a sacrifice of your own will, taking as your own the mind of the Church.” [/html]


Msgr. Barriero noted that submission of will and intellect is required when it comes to the official teachings of the Church, rather than prudential opinions.  “For example,” he said, “it is required for the teaching on abortion, but there can be legitimate differences of opinion among Catholics on how to take care of the poor.”

Giving another example, he pointed out that “while the Church can never ordain women as priests, there can be difference on how to ensure all are provided access to medical care.”

The pope concluded with a prayer asking God to “help us to believe in Jesus, as St. Peter did, and to always be sincere with Him and with all people.” 
Reply
#2
I have always told my students for first communion that if they think that what I tell them is nonsense, that they are free to leave. There is no lock on the door.
Reply
#3
Didn't this Pope take the oath against modernism when he was ordained?

Perhaps seminarian Ratzinger should have resigned and left the Church too, rather than take a sacred oath and fail to keep it.

He clearly did not agree with all of it when he took that oath, because his works and his writings since then display his belief in mutable truth and evolving dogma.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. .
Reply
#4
Some deep dive here.

http://www.cfnews.org/oathmodbtryd.htm

Reply
#5
LifeSiteNews Wrote:Pope Benedict XVI spoke of Judas’ betrayal of Christ, saying that Judas’ problem was failing to leave Christ when he no longer believed – a “falsehood,” said the Pope, “which is a mark of the devil.”

Judas,” said Pope Benedict, “could have left, as many of the disciples did; indeed, he would have left if he were honest. Instead he remained with Jesus. He did not remain because of faith, or because of love, but with the secret intention of taking vengeance on the Master.”
Vox Wrote:Nice! Pretty much straight-out calling these dissenters "Judases"!

If that is the intended implication, then let's hope that his actions begin to meet his words: in other words, let's hope we don't see another Assisi or any another ecumenical prayer service with apostates, pagans, and unbelievers. In fact, if this is what he means to say, then we should expect that he will condemn these sacrilegious meetings, including the one he participated in.
Reply
#6
(08-30-2012, 07:21 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: In fact, if this is what he means to say, then we should expect that he will condemn these sacrilegious meetings, including the one he participated in.

Don't hold your breath, unless your favourite colour is blue.
Reply
#7
It didn't seem to me like the Holy Father is doing anything really great here.  Sounds more like people are propping it up to be that.

The pope's reason for why non-believers should leave is because that's the honest thing to do.

True, it's incredibly dishonest to cling to a religion you don't believe.  But what of scandal?  He says Judas would have been better off had he left Christ right away?  What kind of hogwash is that?  Does that make any sense on any level?  That Judas' problem was sticking around while he didn't believe.  The flip side of that is that Judas' life would have improved had he left Christ right after he stopped believing. 

It's all very odd.

But I don't think the problem is as simple as people who don't believe anymore.  When you take it to the level of clergy, a huge problem is that not only are there leaders who don't believe, they're set on destroying the Church.  Whatever their motivations are, the modernists one and only goal has always been the overhaul of Christ's Church.  And the leader of that Church here on earth makes an appeal to honesty saying that they should just leave?

No, they should be kicked out, excommunicated and anathematized.  At least once in a while.  HF makes it sound like some sort of revolving dorr where you just come in and out and in depending on how you feel-- and while true that sinners are always welcomed back to the fold, we must remember that this is the Church militant.  Our leaders exist to protect the flock and the faith.  Simply suggesting that non-believers leave is not enough. 
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#8
(08-30-2012, 07:21 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
LifeSiteNews Wrote:Judas,” said Pope Benedict, “could have left, as many of the disciples did; indeed, he would have left if he were honest. Instead he remained with Jesus. He did not remain because of faith, or because of love, but with the secret intention of taking vengeance on the Master.”
Vox Wrote:Nice! Pretty much straight-out calling these dissenters "Judases"!

If that is the intended implication, then let's hope that his actions begin to meet his words: in other words, let's hope we don't see another Assisi or any another ecumenical prayer service with apostates, pagans, and unbelievers. In fact, if this is what he means to say, then we should expect that he will condemn these sacrilegious meetings, including the one he participated in.

What does the "intended implication" have to do with non-Catholics? They are not Judases - because they are not a part of the Church. The Pope is referring to Catholics when he says that...."He (Judas) did not remain because of faith, or because of love, but with a secret intention of taking vengence on the Master."
Reply
#9
(08-30-2012, 08:44 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: No, they should be kicked out, excommunicated and anathematized.  At least once in a while.  HF makes it sound like some sort of revolving dorr where you just come in and out and in depending on how you feel-- and while true that sinners are always welcomed back to the fold, we must remember that this is the Church militant.  Our leaders exist to protect the flock and the faith.  Simply suggesting that non-believers leave is not enough. 

Why didn't Jesus kick Judas out? He had the power to do so, didn't he?
Reply
#10
I like the part where a few examples are given as to what the Church teaches and has to be believed, and then this is followed by examples of where Catholics can have different opinions. I think that the Holy Father must get tired of dealing with dissenters!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)