In a funeral message yesterday, former pope Joseph Ratzinger suggested that the Roman Catholic Church “has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing”. The message was related at the funeral of Cardinal Meisner, who was one of the
dubia cardinals, (asking “Pope Francis” if his statement
Amoris Laetitia had actually contradicted “church teaching”).
July 15, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Benedict XVI sent a sobering message at the funeral of Cardinal Joachim Meisner today, saying he was moved at the dubia cardinal's ability to "live out of a deep conviction that the Lord does not abandon His Church, even when the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing."
The Church "stands in particularly pressing need of convincing shepherds who can resist the dictatorship of the spirit of the age and who live and think the faith with determination," Pope Benedict said in a message read by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, his personal secretary and head of the papal household. Because of this "pressing need," Meisner "found it difficult to leave his post."
"What moved me all the more was that, in this last period of his life, he learned to let go and to live out of a deep conviction that the Lord does not abandon His Church, even when the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing," the pope emeritus concluded.
Meisner, who was 83, was one of the four cardinals who sent Pope Francis a dubia asking if Amoris Laetitia is aligned with Catholic morality. He died still awaiting the pope's response. Although Pope Francis hasn't answered the dubia, he has given his approval to interpretations of the controversial exhortation that say those living in adulterous unions may receive Holy Communion.
Canon lawyer Kurt Martens said Pope Benedict's message was an "amazing yet diplomatic form of support for [the] dubia Cardinals."
Catholics are barquing up the wrong tree.
ReplyDeleteHeh heh heh
DeleteOn a serious note, I've wondered if Ratzinger isn't dismayed by where Francis is taking "the Church". Here he seems to be tipping his hand.
DeleteI think you're right about that.
DeleteMaybe I'm just ignorant but it's always seemed as though he must be. He said that he was given divine direction to step down, didn't he? Seems it was to clear the way for some judgement... Since they obviously haven't had enough.
DeleteI know my RCC friends and associates are horrified by Francis's statements and policies.
When I press them, they bring into play all their arguments about how the pope isn't infallible in everything he says and how having bad leaders doesn't mean that the RCC is itself bad.
Cue Luther, Farel, and the Swiss reformers because we've heard this before.
I'm sure some commenter will correct me, but if the pope really is the vicar of Christ, then it seems logical to expect him to be infallible in everything and impeccable too.
DeleteI'm sure some commenter will correct me, but if the pope really is the vicar of Christ, then it seems logical to expect him to be infallible in everything and impeccable too.
DeleteRome is of course famous for defining things *after the fact*, to understand what it can get away with, after it reviews the situation and understands what it has to work with. In considering "infallibility", Rome also had to consider the scum it had to work with. What strikes me is, *before* the incarnation, when there was no one greater than John the Baptist, Christ *had to have* an *immaculate mother*. But after, in the "union with Christ" "led by the Spirit" realm, when the least of those led by the Spirit was greater than John the Baptist, no amount of sin in the "vicars" was really too much to prevent a pope from being his representative on earth.
Comment has been blocked.
///the current dramatic situation is not really surprising and confirms the Catholic Church to be the True Church of Christ which the enemies want to destroy from the inside and which is forwarned about it by God in numerous private revelations and miracles. ///
DeleteThe current dramatic situation is a super-surprise to the followers of the JPII/BXVI crowd who thought that orthodox popes would now be the norm. The current dramatic situation shows that the Roman Catholic institutional hierarchy is surviving on its institutional memory, that it is just as corrupt now as it was when the fourth and fifth century popes discovered they were wealthy and concluded that they were important.
///The ironic thing is that Benedict XVI, who laments the current situation, was one of the worst modernists at the Second Vatican Council and was a heretic himself, just in more conservative garb. ///
Ironically, you are correct about this.
///Francis merely takes V2 and its emphasis on conscience over dogma to its logical conclusion. ///
Ironically, you are correct about this.
///One could say that God allowing Francis to occupy the Vatican is an act of mercy from God - Bergoglio is so in-your-face heretic that more and more people in the Novus Ordo start realizing what is going on and that the Traditionalist movement is correct. Probable anti(?)-popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were modernist heretics themselves, but they managed to deceive the multitudes to accept V2 revolution, Francis is much more obvious in his heresies and apostasy.///
I suppose some people will move in that direction, but you've already lost the papacy and the hierarchy -- that was critical for "unity" -- "Traditionalists" will never be able to recover that "unbroken succession". Where are the "Old Catholics" following Vatican I by the way?
///Were the kings of Israel impeccable? Absolutely not. The Pope is human as well, a sinner with his soul tainted with original sin as well, his supernatural protection is limited to his teaching office. Insistence that the Pope must be impeccable is another example of a Protestant strawman. ///
See my comment above on the need for an "immaculate mother" The comment about popes being impeccable is really just showing how far Rome is willing to bend its own rules to support its own illogical-but-self-supporting theological constructions.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
///JPII and BXVI were not orthodox Popes, they were modernist heretics implementing V2 and its religious indifferentism and gradual erosion and eventual overthrow of the dogma, and probably anti-Popes (although I can't declare it fo sure without Church's judgment).///
DeleteThis is funny, because down below you say of the "Old Catholics": "they outrigh denied a valid Ecumenical Council and effectively denied Papal authority, and they rejected dogmatic definition of Papal infallibility. Sedevacantism/sedeprivationism upholds the Papal authority by pointing out that a formal heretic loses office without any further declaration (St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antoninus, St. Francis de Sales) and thus heretics cannot be Popes. Traditionalists also do not deny any dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church or any Papal prerogative."
You are drawing some mighty fine lines here, ... you are in effect "outright denying" Vatican II (how do you know it's not valid as well), and you are also, while paying lip service to "papal authority" (which they did as well), denying actual popes, calling them "modernist heretics" (how would you know?)
///Corruption, which indeed occured during periods such as pornocracy, and doctrinal errors are two different matter. ///
Right. The "Alias Smith and Jones" defense. "For all the trains and banks they robbed, they never taught anything". They can be the worst robbers, murderers, etc., and they are still popes.
This is one of those distinctions made after-the-fact. I've demonstrated that bishops of rome represented the pinnacle of harm in the early church"; they were violent and were killing each other from the beginning (Hermas, c. 150 AD, relates how the councils of elders in Rome opposed one another, "had a certain jealousy of one anothe rover questions of preeminence". And don't tell me "Peter was human" -- because Peter did not do anything that was absolutely near to what later "popes" did.
As for "teaching", that is laughable, because no "pope" ever "taught" anything until late fourth and fifth century popes started issuing decrees, following their discovery that they were wealthy and now somewhat important. Part of "The Tome of Leo" made it into the definition at Chalcedon, but it was by no means accepted as "papal teaching". Leo was one more "bishop" among others who were regarded as equivalent in authority. (The "first among equals" standing was -- according to everything that the eastern bishops said -- because of Rome's standing as the old capital of the empire. They said this at Constantinople (381) and again at Chalcedon). It is Rome that went against the grain and rejected those notions -- widely held among the early church -- they wanted to be greatest of course.
///"See my comment above on the need for an "immaculate mother" The comment about popes being impeccable is really just showing how far Rome is willing to bend its own rules to support its own illogical-but-self-supporting theological constructions."
DeleteI don't even know what you are talking about. ///
Arguably, Christ's "union" with his church is closer than that of his earthly relations while he was on the earth. And yet, the churchly "union" with popes, etc., is permitted to be sullied (so long as "the teaching" is pure) -- while Christ couldn't physically be born to someone with the least stain of sin, according to this "pure" Roman dogma.
But on the other hand, you say Mary was "without sin". That's not the case. Mark 3 relates her with the brothers, trying to "seize him, for they were saying 'he is out of his mind.'" Further to that, when told about this, Jesus disclaimed his human family ("mother and brothers"), in favor of his current disciples. It is Rome's teaching on this that is warped. So you not only have "the pornocracy", but you've got miscreant doctrines as well.
Strage that you would compare the papacy to the kings of old...
DeleteComment has been blocked.