Bergoglio answers Cordileone

[romishpopishorganist]

This is in contradiction of the solemnly pronounced dogma of papal infallibility. If the Pope fails, that is, if he promulgates heresy to the universal Church, then the Church has defected and the gates of hell have prevailed.

No, it isn't in contradiction to the solemnly pronounced dogma of papal infallibility. Are you an ultramontanist? You think everything that comes out of the mouth of the pope is infallible dogma? Everything the pope does is infallible?

St. Robert Bellarmine stated; "The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err."

Indeed--and under certain, very strict conditions this applies to the papacy.

The papacy, under very strict conditions, is a bulwark against heresy. If anything, perhaps the election of Pope Francis will cause the Church to be less centered on the papacy. The top down institutional model of the Church with the pope at the top--is not the Biblical model and it isn't the the model the ECF operated from. The pope was never intended to the micromanager in-chief. The model the Bible presents, and the model the ECF were under was more like the pope as the center of Communion and Union within the Church.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I will only say that I agree with you in that Protestants who contradict each other in doctrines, worship, morality, and government are united in only one thing. It’s also amusing that Protestants on this forum make it abundantly clear that they do not desire communion, and are in no way in any kind of “communion” with your Novus Ordo church or the Catholic Church, despite your insistence that they are.

All who seek God with a sincere heart will come to a sufficient knowledge of God to be saved. The fundamentalists on this site---I am not sure they seek truth or God with a sincere heart. I think they just love to hate Catholicism. They aren't interested in learning about what we actually believe.

You know you are completely denying the Catholic dogma on the papacy. You cannot ignore your pope and pretend he doesn’t exist. You, as a “Catholic” are bound to obedience and submission because as the Vicar of Christ, he is the head of the visible Church on earth and is the standard and rule of Faith.

No, what I am denying is the "institutional model" of the Church that came about as a consequence of the Reformation. Protestants denied the authority of the Church, so, in good fashion the Church exaggerated the authoritative structures. The Church was not set up like a pyramid with the pope at the top--like the CEO, Chairman of the Board, and COO. The diocesan bishop is also the Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Church in his diocese. The bishop, not the pope is the ordinary authority.

Pope Pius IX, Inter Multiplices: “This chair [of Peter] is the center of Catholic truth and unity, that is, the head, mother, and teacher of all the Churches to which all honor and obedience must be offered.”

Yes, it is---together with the worldwide bishops.

You continue to argue like a Protestant against the Church by your slander of previous popes. Liberius was not a heretic and did not teach heresy to the Church.

No--he just signed on to an ambiguous creed.

Pope Pius IX stated in Quartus Supra that Liberius was falsely accused by the Arians and he had refused to condemn St. Athanasius. Also, in his encyclical Principi Apostolorum Petro, Pope Benedict XV said that Pope Liberius went fearlessly into exile in defense of the orthodox faith. There has never been a true pope that has taught heresy to the universal Church.

Then what of the creed he signed?

Bergoglio is not a coward. It took a lot of testicular fortitude to set up the worship of the pagan Amizonian fertility goddess, Pachamama, in the Vatican garden and process with it into St. Peter’s Basilica itself. That was a bold act of blasphemy and apostasy. Open, manifest apostasy and blasphemy by a “pope”! Explain to me how a true pope can take part in any way in that.

Peter denied Jesus three times.

St. Peter’s, if it ever comes back into the hands of Catholics will need to be exorcised, because of the apostasy, blasphemy and pagan worship that took place there.

Again, it is ridiculous to assert that Bergoglio is ignorant of the Faith. He was extensively educated in the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. He knows the Faith, but he rejects it. He is a manifest public heretic. Actually he is a complete apostate.

Pope Francis was educated as a JESUIT. The JESUITS by the time of Vatican II and after---were not known for teaching orthodox Catholic theology.

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

No, it isn't in contradiction to the solemnly pronounced dogma of papal infallibility. Are you an ultramontanist? You think everything that comes out of the mouth of the pope is infallible dogma? Everything the pope does is infallible?

Indeed--and under certain, very strict conditions this applies to the papacy.

No, you are wrong. The pope cannot just be ignored unless he is making an extraordinary solemn pronouncement such as the Immaculate Conception. In that case, he is nothing more than a cardboard cutout that you place in the vestibule and notice once every hundred years or so.

The Church teaches that the See of Peter is "always unblemished by any error." Vatican I declared that it is not only the extraordinary magisterium, but also the universal ordinary magisterium that is infallible.

Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius Pope Pius IX: “Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”

The papacy, under very strict conditions, is a bulwark against heresy. If anything, perhaps the election of Pope Francis will cause the Church to be less centered on the papacy. The top down institutional model of the Church with the pope at the top--is not the Biblical model and it isn't the the model the ECF operated from. The pope was never intended to the micromanager in-chief. The model the Bible presents, and the model the ECF were under was more like the pope as the center of Communion and Union within the Church.

And here you are denying the monarchical constitution of the Church with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. Peter is the Rock against which the gates of hell can never prevail.

As I say, RPO, you are the most Protestant poster on this forum.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

No, you are wrong. The pope cannot just be ignored unless he is making an extraordinary solemn pronouncement such as the Immaculate Conception. In that case, he is nothing more than a cardboard cutout that you place in the vestibule and notice once every hundred years or so.

The Church teaches that the See of Peter is "always unblemished by any error." Vatican I declared that it is not only the extraordinary magisterium, but also the universal ordinary magisterium that is infallible.

Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius Pope Pius IX: “Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”


And here you are denying the monarchical constitution of the Church with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. Peter is the Rock against which the gates of hell can never prevail.

As I say, RPO, you are the most Protestant poster on this forum.

I see that language as poetic--not to be taken literally--concerning the day to day acts and teachings of the papacy. In the day to day acts and teachings, the pope is functioning as a bishop with all the other bishops. Like all individual bishops he can err. It is when the pope functions as supreme teacher of the Faith that he cannot err.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

And here you are denying the monarchical constitution of the Church with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. Peter is the Rock against which the gates of hell can never prevail.

As I say, RPO, you are the most Protestant poster on this forum.

For heaven's sake. The Church is a Communion and Union of believers before she is anything else.

Unless you mean to tell me that God directly willed from day one that the pope be the micromanager in chief?

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

I see that language as poetic--not to be taken literally--concerning the day to day acts and teachings of the papacy. In the day to day acts and teachings, the pope is functioning as a bishop with all the other bishops. Like all individual bishops he can err. It is when the pope functions as supreme teacher of the Faith that he cannot err.

Do you understand you are referring to a Dogmatic Constitution of an ecumenical council called for by the pope and held in union with all the bishops in the world? That is an infallible means the Church uses to teach the Church. And you are saying that you regard it as poetic?

So YOU pick and choose which teachings suit you and which you find offensive and choose for yourself which to follow. Yep, you are the most Protestant poster on this forum.

Here is Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii : "For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to permit themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."

But I'm sure papal encyclicals have no meaning for you since you accept what Catholic teachings are convenient for you and reject those that don't suit you.

 

[1Thess521]

I see that language as poetic--not to be taken literally--concerning the day to day acts and teachings of the papacy. In the day to day acts and teachings, the pope is functioning as a bishop with all the other bishops. Like all individual bishops he can err. It is when the pope functions as supreme teacher of the Faith that he cannot err.

@dingoling.
Will you help your fellow Catholic out on discerning what is literal and what is not?

 

[1Thess521]

Do you understand you are referring to a Dogmatic Constitution of an ecumenical council called for by the pope and held in union with all the bishops in the world? That is an infallible means the Church uses to teach the Church. And you are saying that you regard it as poetic?

So YOU pick and choose which teachings suit you and which you find offensive and choose for yourself which to follow. Yep, you are the most Protestant poster on this forum.

Here is Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii : "For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to permit themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."

But I'm sure papal encyclicals have no meaning for you since you accept what Catholic teachings are convenient for you and reject those that don't suit you.

@dingoling.
Will you help your fellow Catholic out on discerning what is literal and what is not?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

@dingoling.
Will you help your fellow Catholic out on discerning what is literal and what is not?

The poster is part of a break-away sect that sees the See of Rome as unoccupied. In essence, his sect retains the trappings of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. They think Catholicism as it appeared and was practiced in the 1950's is the gold standard of Catholicism. It is all about nostalgia for these people. They yearn for what they see as the glory days of Catholicism in this country and believe Vatican II ruined Catholicism. Vatican II is seen as this evil boogeyman that destroyed the Catholic Faith. Vatican II is seen as responsible for every evil that exists in the Church today. Heck, It think some of the trad-trad/see is vacant types believe Vatican II is responsible for cancer and the COVID pandemic too.

I get the frustration of the rad-trads and see is vacant types. But it isn't Vatican II that is the problem. The problem was poor implementation of the council and poor catechesis. When you look at the history of the Church, however, this tends to happen after major Church councils. Heck, Arianism got worse after Nicaea. It took about 100 years for things to settle. Vatican II is no different. It will take time for the nonsense to settle, as with most other councils.

 

[RayneBeau]

All who seek God with a sincere heart will come to a sufficient knowledge of God to be saved. The fundamentalists on this site---I am not sure they seek truth or God with a sincere heart. I think they just love to hate Catholicism. They aren't interested in learning about what we actually believe.

No, what I am denying is the "institutional model" of the Church that came about as a consequence of the Reformation. Protestants denied the authority of the Church, so, in good fashion the Church exaggerated the authoritative structures. The Church was not set up like a pyramid with the pope at the top--like the CEO, Chairman of the Board, and COO. The diocesan bishop is also the Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Church in his diocese. The bishop, not the pope is the ordinary authority.

Modern day Roman Catholics are wringing their hands hoping to preserve their Roman Catholic culture because their 'Church' makes them fearfully aware that they are quickly losing ground. The very "lies" which the RCC is profoundly based on and has shaped their culture, is crumbling before their very eyes, and they blame that on the Reformation.
Is a modern 'reformation' needed in the Roman Catholic Church today?
The only true reformation is that which emanates from the sufficiency and authority of the Word of God, and the gospel of grace - not from the Roman Catholic Church!

 

[kiwimacnz]

Modern day Roman Catholics are wringing their hands hoping to preserve their Roman Catholic culture because their 'Church' makes them fearfully aware that they are quickly losing ground. The very "lies" which the RCC is profoundly based on and has shaped their culture, is crumbling before their very eyes, and they blame that on the Reformation.
Is a modern 'reformation' needed in the Roman Catholic Church today?
The only true reformation is that which emanates from the sufficiency and authority of the Word of God, and the gospel of grace - not from the Roman Catholic Church!

Twaddle.