Pope Francis's Apostolic Exhortation «Evangelii Gaudium»
#31
(11-26-2013, 10:17 PM)triumphguy Wrote:
(11-26-2013, 02:06 PM)Geremia Wrote: That's the good part. The bad part, from the section on ecumenism: "Patriarch of Constantinople, His Holiness Bartholomaios I, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, His Grace Rowan Williams"
Why such honorifics for heretics, especially for the latter, who's just a layman‽
Because they are not heretics, they are leaders of their Christian denominations/churches.
They deny the papacy. That makes them heretics.
Reply
#32
(11-27-2013, 01:23 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: The pope is merely reiterating the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Except when he says heretical things, like that the Old Covenant is still valid.
(11-27-2013, 01:23 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: The fact that it seems to alarm some people is a testament to the incomplete Christianity that many Catholics subscribe to. As Archbishop Sheen put it "The laity will have to comprehend that Our Blessed Lord was not crucified in a cathedral between two candles, but in the world, on a roadway, in a town garbage heap.."
What did he mean by that? Did he say this at the end of his life, when he got infected by the "spirit of Vatican II" pestilence? There's only one crucifixion, one sacrifice..
Reply
#33
(11-27-2013, 03:20 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(11-27-2013, 01:23 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: The pope is merely reiterating the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Except when he says heretical things, like that the Old Covenant is still valid.
(11-27-2013, 01:23 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: The fact that it seems to alarm some people is a testament to the incomplete Christianity that many Catholics subscribe to. As Archbishop Sheen put it "The laity will have to comprehend that Our Blessed Lord was not crucified in a cathedral between two candles, but in the world, on a roadway, in a town garbage heap.."
What did he mean by that? Did he say this at the end of his life, when he got infected by the "spirit of Vatican II" pestilence? There's only one crucifixion, one sacrifice..
Fulton Sheen was not infected by any pestilence. What he meant is that when we go to church we receive life, truth and grace for service in the world, with people who are not Christian and who are sinners and stuck in the smut and darkness of the world. Pope Francis speaks about the pestilence of spiritual worldliness which unfortunately infects many people who seem to think that being a traditionalist fulfills our Christian obligation. Please CLICK HERE
Reply
#34
(11-26-2013, 02:06 PM)Geremia Wrote: That's the good part. The bad part, from the section on ecumenism: "Patriarch of Constantinople, His Holiness Bartholomaios I, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, His Grace Rowan Williams"
Why such honorifics for heretics, especially for the latter, who's just a layman‽
I remember that Father Cekada said that even though he doesn't believe that Francis is the pope that he would render him the courtesy of calling him by the name he prefers to be called.
Reply
#35
(11-27-2013, 04:23 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: Fulton Sheen was not infected by any pestilence.
He may have been good pre-Vatican II, but post-Vatican II he supported ecumenism and endorsed Teilhard de Chardin's "rethinking of Christianity."
(11-27-2013, 04:23 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: What he meant is that when we go to church we receive life, truth and grace for service in the world, with people who are not Christian and who are sinners and stuck in the smut and darkness of the world. Pope Francis speaks about the pestilence of spiritual worldliness which unfortunately infects many people who seem to think that being a traditionalist fulfills our Christian obligation.
Being a traditional Catholic is an absolutely necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation.
Also, what about traditionalist monks, who shun the world and its "smut and darkness" in order to devote their lives 100% to contemplation of the Holy Trinity? Can't they fulfill their Christian obligation that way? We're certainly all called to be missionary, but we're not all called to be secular. It seems you and Francis are saying corporal works are more important than spiritual works, but both are necessary.
(11-27-2013, 04:23 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: Please CLICK HERE
I'll respond over there. thanks
Reply
#36
(11-26-2013, 06:21 PM)Geremia Wrote: What do you mean by "merely extended also to the Gentiles"?

I think the confusion some people have is between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.  The Mosaic is what was revoked, not the Abrahamic.  God has not revoked the promise made to Abraham and his descendants, it has been revealed though that Gentiles may also also be heirs to that covenant through faith, just like Jews could be and still can be.  Just because the Gentiles can now be saved, does not mean the Jews are definitively cast off--God will still honor his promise to them as well.  St. Thomas explains this in his commentaries on Romans and Galatians.  For example, in his commentary on Romans he notes:

253. Then when he says Does their faithlessness (v3b) he excludes this objection by showing the unsuitable conclusion it engenders. For if the Jews’ prerogative were taken away on account of the unbelief of some, it would follow that man’s unbelief would nullify God’s faithfulness -- which is an unacceptable conclusion.  In another way, it can be understood as referring to the faith with which God is faithful in keeping His promises: “He who promised is faithful” (Heb 10:23). This faithfulness would be nullified, if it happened that the Jews had no advantage, just because some have not believed.

And later:

924. Then when he says, For the gifts, he excludes an objection.
For someone might claim that even though the Jews were formerly beloved on account of their forefathers, nevertheless the hostility they exert against the gospel prevents them from being saved in the future. But the Apostle asserts that this is false, saying: The gifts and call of God are irrevocable, i.e., without repentance. As if to say: That God gives something to certain ones or call certain ones is without repentance, because God does not change His mind: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind” (Ps 110:4).

Here's an article which summarizes the relationship between these two covenants:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l...ecnum=7878
Reply
#37
(11-27-2013, 03:16 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(11-26-2013, 10:17 PM)triumphguy Wrote:
(11-26-2013, 02:06 PM)Geremia Wrote: That's the good part. The bad part, from the section on ecumenism: "Patriarch of Constantinople, His Holiness Bartholomaios I, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, His Grace Rowan Williams"
Why such honorifics for heretics, especially for the latter, who's just a layman‽
Because they are not heretics, they are leaders of their Christian denominations/churches.
They deny the papacy. That makes them heretics.

You have to be a Catholic to be a heretic.

Because to be a heretic denotes making a choice. "The term heresy is from Greek αἵρεσις originally meant "choice" or "thing chosen"" Cross, F.L.; Livingstone, E.A., eds. (1974). "Heresy". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

People born into other denominations do not have a "choice" to dissent from "our" Church teaching.
Reply
#38
(11-27-2013, 06:00 AM)Geremia Wrote: [quote='Gabriel Serafin' pid='1219067' dateline='1385540584']Fulton Sheen was not infected by any pestilence.
He may have been good pre-Vatican II, but post-Vatican II he supported ecumenism and endorsed Teilhard de Chardin's "rethinking of Christianity."
The problem is that you are poisoning your mind by reading poisoned websites. The link you offer is a smear on Sheen because of his observations of biological evolution. First realize that biological evolution is not contrary to the teachings of the Church. Long before Darwin St Augustine proposed the idea that man may have come from lower forms of life. But Genesis itself simply states that God made man from the slime of the earth--interpret that as you will, but to go from slime to Rational Man does imply some form of evolution. What is condemned by the Church is atheistic evolution.


(11-27-2013, 06:00 AM)Geremia Wrote: Being a traditional Catholic is an absolutely necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation.
Also, what about traditionalist monks, who shun the world and its "smut and darkness" in order to devote their lives 100% to contemplation of the Holy Trinity? Can't they fulfill their Christian obligation that way? We're certainly all called to be missionary, but we're not all called to be secular. It seems you and Francis are saying corporal works are more important than spiritual works, but both are necessary.
The pharisees made it quite clear that merely following traditions is not enough to please God. As for nuns and monks, there are different orders, and some are called to be cloistered contemplative or in the midst of the world in service---but both are called to be in service of their fellow man. Sheen's comments were directed to the Christian Laity. Here it is in his own words:


"..On the one hand the Christian laity forms a kind of a ghetto, that is to say, consider their religious activities to be confined only within the Church and keeping the commandments, Christians huddled together in a kind of an igloo completely divorcing faith and action. The other extreme is that they have become so worldly that they can do nothing with it. The result of this separation---the separation of religion and the world--is that culture has emancipated itself from Christ that it has become demonic.

"No one can therefore expect to fulfill his Christian vocation, or attain any kind of personal integrity in the modern world, who is not at home with computers, with slums, with races, with world affairs, with everything. Where the gospel intersects the world it is the laity who stand at that point. As the cross stood at the intersection of the cultures and the civilization of Athens, Jerusalem and Rome. The laity crossed all frontiers, and they do this in the name of Christ.

As we see the laity come to church on Sundays, we ask them, do they really love one another? Are they a unified element in the community? Are they coming together just to fulfill an obligation, trying to avoid a mortal sin, rather than to come and strengthen and feed a life which they ought to spread. Are they seeking a kind of selfish sanctification forgetful that Our Blessed Lords said 'for their sakes do I sanctify myself'. . .  when others look at this band of the faithful will they think I ought to be like them, I ought to have their love, and their truth and their inner peace; all too often it's just the opposite.

So the laity therefore will have to a come to the comprehension that Our Blessed Lord was not not crucified in a cathedral, between two candles, but in the world, on a roadway, in a town garbage heap, at the crossroads where there were languages written upon the cross--yes they were Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, but they could just as well been in English, Bantu, or Afrikaans---it would make no difference. He placed Himself at the very center of the world, in the midst of smut, and thieves, and soldiers, and gamblers, and He was there to extend pardon to them. This is the vocation of the laity: To make Christ known in the world. . .  "
Reply
#39
(11-27-2013, 03:20 AM)Geremia Wrote: Except when he says heretical things, like that the Old Covenant is still valid.
The problem is that you are not reading your Bible. Pope Francis was simply referring to Romans Chapter 11, where Paul begins by stating: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.

Your attacks on the Holy Father are simply spreading lies about the Holy Father and you are making statements based on what you are reading from Satanic deceptions disguised as "authentic Catholicism". Now carefully read what St. Pail states here in Romans 11:25...

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written..."


It seems like you are spending too much time reading poisoned websites instead of reading the Bible, which probably sits on the shelf collecting dust. If not, you would know that Paul said this about the Jews who rejected Christ:

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.--Romans 11: 28-32

Please read the Word of God!
Reply
#40
One of my favorite authors on Facebook said that he would "hate to be Francis's food tester". (-_-)

The Current Pontiff is 76 years old. Here are some things that I am looking forward to see what will happen:

1) The Canonizations in April... it will be the definitive line in which we must choose Rome or our own path.  :O
2) Any results from the Council of 8 decision's on the Church. I want to see what he has in mind in giving women higher roles in the Church, whatever that means.  ???
3) New precedents established by Francis. From now on, every pope MUST act exactly like Francis. If future pontiffs aren't a "People's Pope", they will be given the proverbial middle finger   :beatup:
4) The state of Traditionalists communities, from all sides of the spectrum, under Francis's pontificate :chainsaw:

5) Whether or not Catholic numbers, culture, and worship will be reduced to utter redundancy. :sobstory:
6) Francis's choice of Cardinals :redhatsociety:
7) If he becomes some kind of martyr. I hope not because if he does, the world will remember him as a "real pope who tried to do what the world wanted him to do".  :nonsum:
8) This last one is my most optimistic one: I wonder if Francis will be another "Pio Nono" where he started out as a liberal and later became a reactionary conservative.  :twoguns:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)