On Eve of Quincentenary of Protestant Revolt, Vatican Ecumenism Ramps Up

statue-of-st-peter-in-st-peters-square-at-the-vatican

 

 

By Steve Skojec at OnePeterFive:

Today’s Holy See Press Office Bulletin tells us that Pope Francis received a thousand German Lutherans in audience at the Pope Paul VI hall at the Vatican:

The Holy Father described this as a “beautiful initiative” and thanked the bishops who supported and accompanied the pilgrims.

“Let us give thanks to God”, he said, “because today, as Lutherans and Catholics, we are journeying together on the way from conflict to communion. We have already travelled an important part of the road. Along the path we feel contrasting sentiments: pain for the division that still exists between us, but also joy at the fraternity we have already rediscovered. Your presence, so numerous and enthusiastic, is a clear sign of this fraternity, and it fills us with the hope that mutual understanding may continue to grow”.

“The apostle Paul tells us that, by virtue of our baptism, we all form the single Body of Christ. The various members, in fact, form one body. Therefore, we belong to each other and when one suffers, all suffer; when one rejoices, we all rejoice. We can continue trustfully on our ecumenical path, because we know that despite the many issues that still separate us, we are already united. What unites us is far greater than what divides us”, the Holy Father emphasised, noting that at the end of the month he will travel to Lund in Sweden to commemorate, along with the World Lutheran Federation, the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, and to give thanks to God for the official dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics.

“An essential part of this commemoration”, he observed, “will consist of turning our gaze towards the future, with a view to a common Christian witness to today’s world, that thirsts so greatly for God and His mercy. The witness that the world expects of us is above that of rendering visible the mercy God has towards us, through service to the poorest, to the sick, to those who have abandoned their homelands to seek a better future for themselves and for their loved ones. In placing ourselves at the service of those most in need we experience that we are already united: it is God’s mercy that unites us”.

A Reuters File Photo shows Francis with a Statue of Martin Luther

A Reuters File Photo shows Francis with a Statue of Martin Luther (Image via Vatican Radio)

The very idea that the Catholic Church is “commemorating” the 500th anniversary of the “Reformation” is astonishing. It is no surprise that Pope Francis chooses to focus on the shared pursuit of corporal works of Mercy since the doctrinal differences that separate us are still incredibly profound. Consider how forcefully Luther’s revolt was condemned by Pope Leo X in his June 15, 1520 bull, Exurge Domine:

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord’s field as harmful thorn-bushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.

[…]

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication….

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places.

One cannot help but wonder, therefore, how what Francis states could be true: “What unites us is far greater than what divides us”.

Further, while Francis speaks — as he always does — of mercy, it is not as though Pope Leo lacked compassion; the sadness he had over Martin Luther’s rebuffs of papal clemency clearly troubled him deeply:

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.

The fact is, Luther did not repent. He never, as Leo ardently hoped, found it within himself to “abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us”.

In modern terms, a commemoration is not typically a somber affair, but a celebration. What is the basis of this unity we hear so much about? Have the Lutherans repented of the five hundred year old schism their namesake fomented within the Church? Have they rejected the 41 errors laid out in Exurge Domine? Have they submitted to the Roman Pontiff, which is necessary for salvation?

We have heard, in recent years, an abandonment by top Catholic prelates of the idea of an “ecumenism of return” — that is to say, an ecumenism that seeks to reconcile other Christian sects with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by bringing them home into the fullness of faith. We have seen gestures — such as Francis strongly suggesting that Lutherans can, if their conscience allows it, receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church — that defy the centuries-old proscriptions against the appearance of false unity with those who hold to Christian heresy, and the Eucharistic profanation that would result.

The message of Francis in October of 2016 flies in the face of the admonitions found in Mortalium Animos, the 1928 encyclical of Pope Pius XI on the topic of “religious unity.” Compare the statements yourself. Francis said to the Lutherans gathered in Rome today:

While theologians continue their dialogue in the doctrinal sphere, continue insistently to seek opportunities to meet each other, to get to know each other better, to pray together and to offer your help to each other and to all those who are in need. In this way, freed of every prejudice and trusting only in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that announces peace and reconciliation, you will be true protagonists of a new season in this journey that, with God’s help, will lead to full communion. I assure you of my prayer, and ask you, please to, pray for me, as I am in need.

But Pope Pius made clear the error of this thinking when he wrote:

[M]any non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act, it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost:[15] has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself?
If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another?

The schizophrenia of the post-conciliar Church continues to intensify at a fever pitch. What once was true cannot now be condemned as false, or explained away by phrases like “historical context”. Francis has set himself against his illustrious predecessors in his commitment to religious indifferentism, and it will not stand. Either they were right then, or he is now. Their views are simply incompatible.

We are certainly not “journeying together,” for the paths to salvation between ourselves and other Christian sects seriously diverge. The only course of unity for Catholics and Lutherans is through the repudiation of Lutheran error, the conversion of those who hold to this revolutionary creed, and the restoration of oneness within the One True Faith. Anything less only endangers souls — a terrifyingly common theme in this pontificate.

Let us pray for the true unity of all Christians “in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.

See also: Rome Reports

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to On Eve of Quincentenary of Protestant Revolt, Vatican Ecumenism Ramps Up

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    The message of Francis in October of 2016 flies in the face of the admonitions found in Mortalium Animos, the 1928 encyclical of Pope Pius XI on the topic of “religious unity.”

    Mortalium Animos can only be correctly interpreted in conjunction with Unitatis Redintegratio, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and anon Law.

    As such, the ideology that is being put forward by this 1Peter5 website is contrary to Catholic Doctrine.

    In particular, when Mortalium Animos states “that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises“, the term “such enterprises” refers VERY clearly to non-Catholic activities where “they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal” while refusing to accept the full teaching of Christ in Catholicism.

    Whereas it is quite clear not only that “the idea of an “ecumenism of return” — that is to say, an ecumenism that seeks to reconcile other Christian sects with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by bringing them home into the fullness of faith” is BY NO MEANS an attempt to treat non-Catholic sects as being “equal” to Catholicism.

    Furthermore, Unitatis Redintegratio, which is clearly of a far higher degree of Magisterial Authority than Mortalium Animos, nevertheless changes the disciplinary measures in the earlier Encyclical only in the respect that it allows Diocesan Bishops and the Roman Pontiff universally to permit participation in Ecumenical gatherings, under strict conditions, whilst reaffirming the very denunciations against the false Ecumenism of Pope Pius XI in that same Mortalium Animos.

    Read closely, it can be seen that Unitatis Redintegratio and Mortalium Animos are perfectly compatible with each other — where no Episcopal or Pontifical permissions exist, Catholics continue to be fully subjected to the restrictions against Ecumenical activities that are defined in Mortalium Animos.

    BTW, since the Council of Trent, Catholics are subjected to the laws and penalties described in the Canon Law, and not to the myriad of various condemnations that may have been pronounced elsewhere — so if these people are denouncing the so-called “schizophrenia of the post-conciliar Church“, the Council they’re denouncing is Trent.

    Meanwhile, Pope Martin V, Ad Evitanda Scandala :

    To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ’s faithful that henceforth no one henceforth shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place.

    There is no “schizophrenia” here — following Ad Evitanda Scandala and Exurge Domine and the Canon Law and the Catechism and Unitatis Redintegratio and Mortalium Animos, Catholics can neither attend Lutheran ceremonies nor any ecumenical activities that these Lutherans may wish to organise, unless they are specifically and clearly permitted to do so by their Bishop or by the Roman Pontiff on a case-by-case basis, or unless these same Lutherans were to repudiate their Errors and Heresies, and return into Communion with the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff.

    That the people of that website should denounce the Roman Pontiff’s efforts towards encouraging exactly that reconciliation, and for such intellectually myopic “reasons” contrary to Catholic Tradition, particularly in our understanding of it since Trent and Vatican I, is beyond ludicrous.

  2. Pingback: On Eve of Quincentenary of Protestant Revolt, Vatican Ecumenism Ramps Up — – CYON

  3. JabbaPapa says:

    [1 Peter 5]

    {5:1} Therefore, I beg the elders who are among you, as one who is also an elder and a witness of the Passion of Christ, who also shares in that glory which is to be revealed in the future:
    {5:2} pasture the flock of God that is among you, providing for it, not as a requirement, but willingly, in accord with God, and not for the sake of tainted profit, but freely,
    {5:3} not so as to dominate by means of the clerical state, but so as to be formed into a flock from the heart.
    {5:4} And when the Leader of pastors will have appeared, you shall secure an unfading crown of glory.
    {5:5} Similarly, young persons, be subject to the elders. And infuse all humility among one another, for God resists the arrogant, but to the humble he gives grace.
    {5:6} And so, be humbled under the powerful hand of God, so that he may exalt you in the time of visitation.
    {5:7} Cast all your cares upon him, for he takes care of you.
    {5:8} Be sober and vigilant. For your adversary, the devil, is like a roaring lion, traveling around and seeking those whom he might devour.
    {5:9} Resist him by being strong in faith, being aware that the same passions afflict those who are your brothers in the world.
    {5:10} But the God of all grace, who has called us to his eternal glory in Christ Jesus, will himself perfect, confirm, and establish us, after a brief time of suffering.
    {5:11} To him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
    {5:12} I have written briefly, through Sylvanus, whom I consider to be a faithful brother to you, begging and testifying that this is the true grace of God, in which you have been established.
    {5:13} The Church which is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you, as does my son, Mark.
    {5:14} Greet one another with a holy kiss. Grace be to all of you who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

  4. Toad says:

    “What unites us is far greater than what divides us”.
    Not disputable, surely?

    “5:14} Greet one another with a holy kiss. Grace be to all of you who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.”
    …There. Maybe we should do as we’re told.

  5. JabbaPapa says:

    May I repeat my astonishment at the lack of coverage of the ongoing attempt by the Clinton campaign team to try and destroy the Church ?

    It’s got so bad, that even the typically servile pro-Democrat US Bishops hierarchy are starting to attack the Democrats !!!

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/10/14/catholic-bishops-and-campaigners-condemn-ugly-and-anti-catholic-emails-between-clinton-team/

    That’s where the battle is taking place in this ongoing Spiritual Warfare — and who do you really think started pushing the “Eucharistic Adultery” evil anyway ? Certainly not Pope Francis who overtly condemned the notion in an interview during the second session of the Synod …

  6. If only “Pope” Francis would show a little ecumenical spirit to faithful Catholics, but I guess that’s too much to ask.

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    If only “Pope” Francis would

    Good old reactionary sedevantism in “spirit”, eh, RJB ?

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    … sedevacantism …

  9. johnhenrycn says:

    I know! Let’s start a Heresy A Day thread:

    “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Mt. 25:46

    “But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him! Lk. 12:5

    Eugenio Scalfari, of La Repubblica reports on a now widely known interview which he had with Pope Francis on March 15, 2015:

    “What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how? The response of Francis is distinct and clear (netta e chiara): there is no punishment, but the destruction/annihilation of that soul. [The Italian word is annullamento, literally, “turned into nothing”, meaning here the same as the more usual Italian word for annihilation, annientamento] All the others will participate in the beatitude of living in the presence of the Father. The souls that are destroyed/annihilated will not take part in that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is finished. And this is the motivation of the Church’s missionary activity: to save the lost. And it is also the reason why Francis is a Jesuit to the end.”

    Commentary on the above Franciscan reverie by Father X:

    “I translated this from Italian myself, having lived in Rome for many years and knowing Italian well. This annihilation of the wicked has been a popular thesis among liberal Jesuits in recent decades. And, yes, it is heretical – directly contrary to many Gospel passages – and the constant teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. Scalfari says this response of Francis to his question was “netta e chiara” — “clear and distinct”.”

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    Eugenio Scalfari, of La Repubblica can be trusted just about as far as one can throw him.

    Even so —

    I translated this from Italian myself, having lived in Rome for many years and knowing Italian well

    Italian distruzione does NOT mean the same thing as English “destruction”/”annihilation”.

    As for “annullamento“, it means literally “cancellation”, not “annihilation”. Annihilazione is a completely different word — annullamento means “made worthless”, NOT “cancelled from existence”.

    And if you think that condemnation to Hell isn’t moral/spiritual/intellectual/corporal destruction, you’ve no place denouncing imaginary “heresies”.

    And, yes, it is heretical – directly contrary to many Gospel passages

    Good old Proddy false sola scriptura claims, eh ?

    WHERE exactly has this proposal been condemned as “heretical” by the Roman Magisterium ?

  11. johnhenrycn says:

    So, there’s only one bloke in ZEE VERLT (German) who actually speaks eyetie?

    But seriously, let’s not have a Heresy A Day thread. About a week would be enough to send Jibbery completely around the bend instead of just halfway where he now is.

  12. JabbaPapa says:

    jh, your smug attitude is insufficient to explain WHERE exactly the proposal in question has been condemned as “heretical” by the Roman Magisterium.

    It’s hardly my fault if your Italian is deficient, but if you think that annullamento means annihilazione, then I’d suggest you not give up your day job to try translation as a living.

    Don’t try and start a flame war with me BTW — I have great respect for mmvc as much as I do for dearest kathleen and the always thought-provoking toad, despite his frequently self-confessed flaws.

  13. mmvc says:

    May I repeat my astonishment at the lack of coverage of the ongoing attempt by the Clinton campaign team to try and destroy the Church ?

    Please feel free to cover it yourself, Jabba. I’m sure you know better than most how to go about that. You may even have a forum that’s waiting to be used for precisely that purpose… ;o)

  14. JabbaPapa says:

    You’re quite possibly right, but Assange, Voris, Father Z, the CH, and some others, including now apparently some US Bishops that the Clintons were taking for granted, are far closer to these matters than I am ; not to mention the annoying personal reasons that have led to the dormancy of that forum, as well as several other things … 😦

    But I used “astonishment”, — CP&S has an ability to help make these matters known beyond the strict confines of the blogosphere.

  15. Toad says:

    “May I repeat my astonishment at the lack of coverage of the ongoing attempt by the Clinton campaign team to try and destroy the Church ?”

    Wild, paranoid, overreaction here, I suggest. The Clintons are no more interested in destroying the Catholic Church than in destroying the Methodists, or Mormons.
    Unless, of course, they’d pick up more votes for doing so.
    Which they won’t.
    The memo-writers probably don’t care for The Church.
    Many people don’t.

  16. Magdalene says:

    Kind of wondering just which kind of Lutherans we have so much in common with? Is it the man himself who wanted to ‘wash our hands with the blood of bishops’? Is it the pro-abortion, sodomy supporting Lutherans? Is it the lady bishop Lutherans? Which synod?

  17. mmvc says:

    Indeed Magdalene.
    The image of the smiling pope standing next to an adorned statue of Luther is also disconcerting…

  18. johnhenrycn says:

    “jh, your smug attitude is insufficient to explain WHERE exactly the proposal in question has been condemned as “heretical” by the Roman Magisterium.”

    Magisterium? What? We doan need no stinkin’ Magistery to tell us what Hell means!

  19. mmvc says:

    Oh c’mon, Jabba. Lighten up!
    JH is an ally and solidly Catholic to boot!

  20. Toad says:

    “Kind of wondering just which kind of Lutherans we have so much in common with? “
    Indeed, Magdalene.
    …Unless it’s the ones who believe Christ is both God and Our Saviour?

  21. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad (20:48) must know that “Indeed” is the most hackneyed word after “quite” and “just so” used by people pretending to know English vernacular. Indeed, I remember asking an AmerIndian client once, during a trial before ‘Hanging’ Judge Hay (RIP) whether he, after breaking into a woman’s house and proceeding to stroke his erect penis in her kitchen remembered having done so; and his answer was: “Indeed, I don’t”. I asked him not put too fine a point upon it as Mr Pickwick was fond of saying (oh, how Judge Hay laughed at that!) and he got off with a promise to abstain from strong drink, as our half-Finnish JabbaPapa should also do.

  22. mmvc says:

    “…he got off with a promise to abstain from strong drink, as our half-Finnish JabbaPapa should also do.”

    Do you really think our Jabba could churn out so many tortuous defences of Pope Francis under the influence of strong drink, JH? Now behave! 😉

  23. GC says:

    Jabba: Annihilazione is a completely different word

    Actually, I think that word was annihilated even before it became an Italian word, which I don’t think it ever did. It doesn’t even look proper Italian. Might be a contrived word.

    Annientamento is possibly the word you’re fishing for, jabs?

  24. johnhenrycn says:

    Indeed, mmvc (23:23) you have hit the snail on the head. Indeed, I’m remembering some of his earlier incarnations before he changed his avatar to some Arabic symbol. Indeed, he is one of the best commenters here – much more a linguist than I am – although I hardly ever read his comments all the way through.

  25. johnhenrycn says:

    GC: I’ve been reading about disturbing developments in Malaysia relating (potentially) to increased observance of Sharia down there. I remember you telling us before about how your Muslim neighbours were kind and respectful of you. Any thoughts on what’s going on now?

  26. johnhenrycn says:

    Reprising my earlier (23:07) on this thread: I took a large object to a UPS (courier) outlet yesterday for delivery to another city. It was unpackaged. The lady (er, woman) assistant told me that the box would cost $15, another $5 for the bubble wrap, and $3 for the penis. Concerning the last charge, I asked: “Excuse me?” – and she explained that plastic peanuts were necessary to prevent my shipment from shaking around during transit and that the plastic bubble wrap wasn’t enough.

  27. JabbaPapa says:

    GC :

    Jabba: Annihilazione is a completely different word

    Actually, I think that word was annihilated even before it became an Italian word, which I don’t think it ever did. It doesn’t even look proper Italian. Might be a contrived word.

    Annientamento is possibly the word you’re fishing for, jabs?

    http://www.padrebergamaschi.eu/new/pensiero.php?testo=Il%20personalismo%20teista%20allo%20specchio

    38) Nel Buddismo, per es., non esiste un se, ne individuale ne universale. La liberazione non è la conquista da parte dell’uomo della pienezza della sua personalità, ma consiste nell’annihilazione della persona, del se, in quanto falso e illusorio e radice del “desiderio”. Nel Buddismo non c’è un Dio Padre che si pone come perfezione infinita cui l’uomo deve modellarsi per entrare nel Regno.

    Happy to have found an on-topic example …

    … but you do have a point, it’s a rare word.

    (there’s a theological error in this example BTW, it not an “imitatio Patri” but the Imitatio Christi)

  28. johnhenrycn says:

    Yaaaawn. Welcome to the Habemus Papam ESL/ISL Blog, where everything you thought you knew about the Catholic Faith is filtered and based on Jabba’s two year hitchhiking trip through Tuscany.

  29. johnhenrycn says:

    Which reminds me of my favourite movie when I discovered Europe back in 1967:

  30. johnhenrycn says:

    Ginny, Shaken, Not Stirred, has’nt commented here yet. Funny.

  31. johnhenrycn says:

    Embarrassing punctuation. Sorry. Good night.

  32. JabbaPapa says:

    Yaaaawn. Welcome to the Habemus Papam ESL/ISL Blog, where everything you thought you knew about the Catholic Faith is filtered and based on Jabba’s two year hitchhiking trip through Tuscany.

    So I guess you’re gonna carry on with this nonstop empty-headed gibberish against me then, jh ?

    I am not the discussion topic here.

    Nor is the zero-content aimless rambling that you enjoy publishing here.

  33. johnhenrycn says:

    Jabba says that I’m not “the zero-content aimless rambling” which CP&S enjoys publishing.

    I so look forward to meeting him and Kehoe and Toad and Ginny&Rossi someday.

  34. JabbaPapa says:

    I am not the discussion topic here, jh.

    “which CP&S enjoys publishing” — “you“, jh, are not CP&S.

    “How many cannabis cigarettes do you smoke before posting here, jh ?” would be the sort of appropriate quid pro quo to the sort of remarks you’ve made about me ; that’s the kind of mindless inanity that you’ve been posting anyway, with the fig-leaf that it’s “just joking”, though quite clearly it’s not, given that you seem to have decided to make it a daily activity.

    You’ve done it before BTW, elsewhere, and it was exactly as stupid then as it is today.

    STOP posting these “jokes” about me as if they were “funny” — you’re not a spotty teenager having a laff with his mates behind the bicycle shed, although you clearly seem to “think” like one.

  35. kathleen says:

    Good night, JH…. And good morning Jabba. 🙂

    Returning to the discussion about Pope Francis’ ‘ideas’ on Hell, and looking at another of his references to it, didn’t he say in AL that “no one could suffer forever” (or words to that effect)??
    IOW, he was inferring either that Hell as a place where poor damned souls end up was not permanent, or that no one ever goes there! Neither of these options is part of the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church.

  36. johnhenrycn says:

    So sorry for you, Jabby (08:19) – Simon Rafe, one of the star performers at Church Militant recently sent me a private e-mail telling me to stop making fun of him and of his English background and of his non-U accent…or else. I can’t show it to you because it was a private communication, and I immediately deleted it out of embarrassment for him. You, like him, are so thin-skinned. You scream with pain when people laugh at you. Tell you what: why not think of something that actually cuts me to the quick, instead of silly “cannabis cigarette” stuff ? You can’t. You are so thick. You can’t wound anyone because you’re not actually interested in anyone. I’m as bad as you, but for different reasons.We shall meet again; and next time, grow up.

  37. Roger says:

    Yes Kathleen.
    Free will and Our choice of either Heaven and or Hell are made in this world, We have been given Time. Time this gift of God. When we die we enter into Eternity.
    Eternity is beyond Our comprehension but we know of Purgatory (suffering for Sins forgiven but for which reparation is required). God is pure and there can be NO sin or stain of Sin in Heaven.
    Hell is an Eternity of Reparation for those who have turned their back on Heaven. They more they blaspheme the more they Hate the more Reparation for their Sins. They are there by their own choice.

    Use you time on Earth wisely.
    The fashionable opinions of much that comes out of Rome I file in my shredder!
    The Faith of 2000 years binds Us All not some passing modern misconceived fashion!

  38. JabbaPapa says:

    didn’t he say in AL that “no one could suffer forever” (or words to that effect)??

    You’re probably referring to 116-117, within the long meditation on love/charity of 1 Corinthians 13, 4-7 :

    {13:4} Charity is patient, is kind. Charity does not envy, does not act wrongly, is not inflated.
    {13:5} Charity is not ambitious, does not seek for itself, is not provoked to anger, devises no evil.
    {13:6} Charity does not rejoice over iniquity, but rejoices in truth.
    {13:7} Charity suffers all, believes all, hopes all, endures all.

    The original text takes the position of looking at the other (implicitly the spouse) with love, and hope for their future salvation.

    The English translation warps this significantly, by translating “Quella persona, con tutte le sue debolezze, è chiamata alla pienezza del Cielo.” as : “Each person, with all his or her failings, is called to the fullness of life in heaven.

    Pope Francis basically wrote in the context of his meditation on matrimonial love that, within the Sacramental Life of Holy Matrimony, one’s spouse considered individually as a person, is called through our love and in our hope and by Christ in the Sacrament towards eternal Salvation ; the English translation warps it into words that could be interpreted as “all men are saved”.

    Sadly, many Vatican documents are translated by “liberal”-“progressives”. Amoris Laetitia is no exception.

    Even so, to be “called to the fullness of life in heaven” (and so is every created soul), is certainly no guarantee of universal salvation ; but yes, the English text here is defective in the manner you suggest.

    I avoid these translations as much as I can, though sadly many others do not have any choice in the matter.

  39. JabbaPapa says:

    You are so thick

    No, I’m just utterly bored with the immaturity that you insist on displaying.

  40. johnhenrycn says:

    If you were actually interested in me, Jabba, you’d have noticed that I called you “so thin-skinned” and “so thick” in the same comment. I should have gone into psychiatry.

  41. mmvc says:

    ‘Sadly, many Vatican documents are translated by “liberal”-“progressives”. Amoris Laetitia is no exception.’

    So why do native Italian academics such as the historian, Roberto de Mattei,
    Vatican experts and journalists, Dr. Sandro Magister and Marco Tosatti – just to mention a few – have serious problems with AL and other Vatican documents?

    Please don’t repeat your mantra about Italian comprehension, linguistic skills and interpretive capabilities, etc being deficient or not sufficiently refined! Honestly Jabba – I hate to say this – but you sometimes give the impression that nobody (other than perhaps you?) is proficient/meticulous/gifted enough…

    Surely even you cannot rule out that it may be the author(s) themselves (let’s not forget the papal ghostwriter and personal theologian, Fr Victor ‘Smoochie’ Fernandez) who have liberal progressive leanings?

  42. Toad says:

    This “thread” is rising to near-schoolyard level.
    I suppose that’s something.
    (Oh, shut up, Toad. pompous old twit. They’re only showing off, and having a bit of innocent fun.)

  43. JabbaPapa says:

    I called you “so thin-skinned” and “so thick” in the same comment

    Thank you for your lovely trolling.

    I should have gone into psychiatry

    Thank you for admitting that you have mental health issues.

  44. Roger says:

    mmvc I agree.
    I thank Jabba for his defence and excellent explainations.

    Here is the problem Obedience.
    If there is a breakdown between the Papacy and the Curia over what is what is written or taught and what is actually being translated and taught then the Disobedience is centered in the Curia.
    Whom then do you Obey? It seems pretty obvious that Blindly Obeying a poor translation ends up with the exact opposite of Heavens Intent and the lose of Souls.
    Confusion of tongues the anathema on Babel.

  45. JabbaPapa says:

    So why do native Italian academics such as the historian, Roberto de Mattei,
    Vatican experts and journalists, Dr. Sandro Magister and Marco Tosatti – just to mention a few – have serious problems with AL and other Vatican documents?

    Typically, for very different reasons than English-speakers.

    But what is this narrative you’re pushing ? Being Italian or French-literate with easy access to either original documents or generally accurately translated ones doesn’t magically turn them into utterly imperfectible expressions of divine revelation that everyone must bow down to and worship absolutely and without question … (to be sarcastic about some accusations that have been made against me)

    These are necessarily imperfect documents that need to be assessed on their own merits — and it is extremely unhelpful when the (US especially) “liberal”-“progressive” mafia has so far infiltrated the Church that it can contaminate the dissemination of those documents with ideologies that are foreign to the Catholic Faith. (viz. “Eucharistic Adultery” passim)

    And they have been doing so constantly since the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, internationally, and their false theology has led the Church into its present, parlous situation.

    But let’s be more serious — the absolute worst translation ever of any Church document since the Council was the original English text of the New Roman Missal ; and that ghastly text has wrought an incalculable degree of damage to not only the local English-language churches, but to the Church as a whole, as it was used to foment disorder, disobedience, factionalism, schismaticism, sectarianism, and all other manner of anti-catholic heresies and blasphemies against the Church of our Lord, and so against God Himself.

    but you sometimes give the impression that nobody (other than perhaps you?) is proficient/meticulous/gifted enough…

    And you consistently try to give the impression that I should just shut up because “the experts/academics/theologians/etc have spoken”.

    You are making no serious attempt to consider what I’m saying at all reasonably. You are belittling it, all the while accusing me of trying to belittle you. I’m NOT. I consider your positions and objections very seriously. If you think not, you are deeply mistaken. 🙂

    I cannot switch off the education that I have received. This does NOT mean, however, that I actually think in the way that you are accusing me of.

    I’m sorry if I give that impression ; but if I’m going to write what I think, then that’s what it is, and not some watered-down version for the convenience or comfort of others.

    Factionalism and uncatholicity are a disease of the post-Conciliar Church, but it is nevertheless quite wrong to think that those setting themselves as “above” and “apart” as some kind of factionalist “true church” “remnant” are not suffering from the disease.

  46. JabbaPapa says:

    If there is a breakdown between the Papacy and the Curia over what is what is written or taught and what is actually being translated and taught then the Disobedience is centered in the Curia.

    I think it’s more of a breakdown between the Authentic Magisterium and some parts of the Curia and some local Churches and some parts of the Laity, but thank you Roger for getting the gist of what I wrote.

  47. JabbaPapa says:

    hmmm the English translation is worse than I thought, I was somehow in a bit of a hurry this morning …

    The English translation warps this significantly, by translating “Quella persona, con tutte le sue debolezze, è chiamata alla pienezza del Cielo.” as : “Each person, with all his or her failings, is called to the fullness of life in heaven. ”

    It also ADDS the words “life in” — the original actually means, literally : “That person, with all of his weaknesses, is called to the fullness of/from Heaven.”

    The sentence was clearly intentionally warped in order to try and promote this “all men are saved” false uncatholic doctrine.

    I haven’t really taken the time to properly compare the English translation of AL with the original, because Blech, and whilst at first glance it’s nowhere near as atrociously awful as the Evangelii Gaudium one (which basically mutated it into an entirely different text), both examples of mistranslation in the English AL I’ve seen so far have been extremely bad ones.

  48. mmvc says:

    Thanks for this Jabba (@12.35)

    My final comment on this post, not least because I’ll be away from my computer for a week.

    I agree with much of what you say. I’m very aware that the liberal press is always ready to misinterpret Catholic documents and teaching to suit its own agenda. This was happening under Pope Benedict and his predecessors. As we all know, this also applied to the VII texts, picked up by liberal Catholics and non-Catholics alike. My only issue is, that whereas Pope Benedict displayed great intelligence and sensitivity to these dangers, Pope Francis (whether deliberately or not) repeatedly seems to speak and write in a way that is ambiguous and that positively invites such interpretations. For that reason I don’t think it’s fair to put as much blame as you do on poor translations and interpretations. In addition it is a fact that Pope Francis has promoted and has chosen to surround himself with senior clergy of an obviously liberal persuasion.

  49. JabbaPapa says:

    Thanks mmvc

    I think the Pope uses deliberate paradox, rather than speaking ambiguously or vaguely as such.

    The Christ Himself used paradox in his Teachings, as did St Paul (particularly in his comments on the Law), St Augustine, toad’s favourite Michel de Montaigne, and even Aquinas.

    Have a wonderful break away from all this internetty stuff !! 🙂

  50. GC says:

    JabbaPapa says: October 15, 2016 at 05:33
    but you do have a point, it’s a rare word.

    Yes, first time I’ve seen it, but I’m nowhere near being the world’s foremost Italianist. It doesn’t seem to follow Italian orthography. Just a hundred or so hits on google. So it’s really really rare. Annichilazione? There, that looks eminently more proper. Live and learn at CP&S.

    And it was just that you seemed to suggest it was the usual word for “annihilation”, which it isn’t. Don’t know why I thought that of you?

    Anyway, not to worry, there’re other big words to get on with. Like quincentenary.

  51. johnhenrycn says:

    Jibbery (11:53) calls me a troll. That’s okay. Free country, etc. but he brought to mind this amusing piece by Jane Kelly over at Salisbury Review, an agnostic, but worthwhile look-see.

  52. JabbaPapa says:

    Jibbery

    ho.

    ho.

    ho.

    [The Moderator – Haven’t you got a ‘tumbleweed’ gif to share with us, Jabba?]

  53. JabbaPapa says:

    [The Moderator – Haven’t you got a ‘tumbleweed’ gif to share with us, Jabba?]

    🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s