So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15). Guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards faith (1 Tim. 6:21-22).

Monday, January 2, 2017

Dividing Lyin'

“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world(.)"—Matthew 25:31–34.
Those who abide by Christ's teaching on marriage are right to be aghast at the possibility that Amoris Laetitia will be used (is being used) to lend legitimacy to those adulterous unions in which far too many Catholics obstinately persist. Those fallen children of the Light who choose to receive Holy Communion, who place their selfish wants above the Truth of God, profane the Body and Blood of Christ, thereby risking an eternal loss of heaven.

Informed Catholics are wary of Amoris Laetitia, or at least a few parts of it that can be used, as more than a few bishop-scholars and distinguished philosophers and other lay faithful have pointed out, to lead people away from the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Aided by the Holy Spirit, the faithful will always spot the Truth where and when it is presented. The faithful will not be conned by half-truths. The faithful will not tolerate bland Catholicism, even if—and especially when—it comes from a hierarch of the Holy Roman Church.

The questions (dubia) raised are from the mouths of four faithful bishops. The bishops who issued the dubia are not two-bit clerics belonging to some sedevacantist fringe group that routinely publishes idiotic commentary critical of anything and everything a post-Vatican II pope might say.

Speaking of idiotic commentary, it is high time faithless bishops and the soft-media—i.e., the Catholic-lite media—stop the unholy banter aimed at four faithful sons of the Church: Meisner, Brandmüller, Burke and Caffarra.

Kasper Watch

Watch carefully! The "progressive" camp, bereft of strategies other than personal attacks, might very well try to divide and conquer the brave Four and their allies. All faux-reformers attempt to deflect criticism of their agenda by projecting their own inadequacies on to those who challenge their heresy ridden words (lies) and deeds (treachery). Furthermore, those who have criticized the dubia issued by Cardinal Burke and the other three cardinals, rather than address the specifics, have revealed themselves to be poor students of papal infallibility.

How and when is a pope's teaching infallible?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0402-siscoe-infallibility.htm
Infallibility is a negative charism (gratia gratis data) that prevents the possibility of error.  It is not to be confused with inspiration, which is a positive divine influence that moves and controls a human agent in what he says or writes; nor is it to be confused with Revelation, which is the communication of some truth by God through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature. Infallibility pertains to the safeguarding and explanation of truths already revealed by God. Since infallibility is only a negative charism, it does not inspire a pope to teach what is true or even defend revealed truths, nor does it “make the pope’s will the ultimate standard of truth and goodness”, but simply prevents him from teaching error under certain limited conditions.
During an address given at the First Vatican Council, Bishop Grasser, who was referred to as “the most prominent theologian at the Council”, said the following:
“In no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, Who is the first and essential truth and Who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present. The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions...”.
The conditions for Papal Infallibility were subsequently defined by the First Vatican Council as follows:
“We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals”.
Here we see that the divine assistance is present only when a pope, (a) using his supreme apostolic authority (b) defines a doctrine, (c) concerning faith and morals, (d) to be held by the universal Church. If any of these conditions are lacking, infallibility is not engaged and error is possible.—Robert J. Siscoe (source)
There is little or no room in a hypocrite's vocabulary for words such as honour. A hypocrite is all about appearances. Are you a hypocrite? Am I?
Pope Francis' unwillingness to respond to a few simple questions raises further doubt about Francis' commitment to dialogue, a dialogue that Francis' defined as open and frank discussion. It would seem entirely inconsistent for someone to invite discussion only to then shut down debate because the debate somehow didn't fit his idea of an open exchange of ideas.—Siscoe (ibid.)
Say one thing, do another; pray one thing, do another. Say 'no' to false pretence!

Amoris Laetitia will not change doctrine. It can not. The "pastoral practices" which flow from it, which are consequential and permitted by it, will give the appearance of a change of doctrine, which will lead some to claim that Church teaching (on Holy Communion) has changed because "pastoral practice" has changed. Error compounds error. Progressives are slick manipulators of perceptions. To the clear-minded, however, no change of doctrine is possible. Pastoral practice must conform to doctrine, to revelation. Cloaking error in the guise of "mercy" is a sure sign that the intentions of those doing the tailoring are suspect. Amoris Laetitia needs clarification. Those who cannot or will not admit to its deficiencies are blind to the dangers already issuing from its influence. Given Pope Francis' intransigence, its revision or suppression will likely be left up to the next pontiff. Until then, we can be confident that no doctrine has changed. We must be patient that a clarification, in whatever form it may take, will come soon enough to prevent the Office of Peter from being destroyed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

"A multitude of wise men is the salvation of the world(.)—Wisdom 6:24. Readers are welcome to make rational and responsible comments. Any comment that 1) offends human dignity and/or 2) which constitutes an irrational attack on the Catholic Faith will not go unchallenged. If deemed completely stupid, such a comment will most assuredly not see the light of day. Them's the rules. Don't like 'em? Move on.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...