Pope Refuses Resignation of Cardinal Convicted of Covering Up Sex Abuse

>theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/19/cardinal-philippe-barbarin-says-pope-has-refused-his-resignation

What's his problem, honestly?

Attached: Pope-Francis-rise-of-libertarianism-roman-catholic-church-pedophiles.jpg (618x397, 46.85K)

Other urls found in this thread:

oodegr.com/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm
golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm
orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=39:the-vatican-dogma
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Maybe you should read the article instead of just the headline.

Nice reddit reply.

Why would the pope be "invoking the presumption of innocence" when the man was convicted of his crimes?

Maybe you should look up what the word "appeal" means.

Even if he did use reddit, you just outed yourself as a redditor by recognising a comment that is supposesly used on reddit. I always wonder why you retards accuse everyone else of coming from the same shithole you crawled out of.

Well aware friend, since we're doing dictionary time lets also look up "convicted" - having been declared guilty of a criminal offense by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge.

Dont get your panties in a bunch because Francis is making a joke out of the vatican.

Imagine trusting the justice system half as much as this guy

I'll remind you that you were the first one to bring up reddit.

He's a pedophile/homosexual, like all Catholics.

Not even the actual faggots who push their agenda are that stupid. They try to stretch the gay population to like 5% of the population, but I doubt it's even that. Yet here you are saying billions of upon billions of people through 2000 years of history are all fags.

Given the general snakiness of Francis Bergoglio, I absolutely think 12 random people will do a better job of evaluating the facts than he would.

The pope and all the sex abuse is what stops me from becoming a catholic

If you're choosing your religion based on the sinlessness of the people who administer its affairs on the earth, you're going to be looking for the rest of your life.

To add on to that:

...

see


Again. There is no branch of christianity that doesn't have gross sin in its ranks. If you use Matt 7:15 in this way, you disclaim all religions and might as well lie down and die.

But Matthew explicitly refers to the fruits of a false prophet, not the fruits of a religious group/organisation. In other words, it literally applies to the Pope more so than it does other sects of Christianity that don't have such an office.

That verse talks about false prophets, with an s denoting multiple. Like the false prophet Luther that shattered Christendom into thousands of sects when it was just one body.
False prophets that lead Christ's flock astray with all sorts of heresy and personal interpretation of His word.

One bad Pope does not discredit the See of St. Peter just like one bad King did not discredit Israels throne in the OT. For ever one bad pope there are many others that are good.

The fruits of Luther has already come to bare with the formation of liberalism, which infects peoples' souls from an ideological standpoint. The same liberalism that confuses preists into spouting heresy.

Even though the smoke of satan has entered Jesus' Church, the gates of Hell will not prevail agianst her. Bad popes come and go, but Holy Mother Church will survive. With or without (you).

I completely agree with that, which is why I'm not a protestant either.

And us Orthodox think the West was led astray by the personal interpretations of St. Augustine and Aquinas.

I find it more disrespectful that you guys sully the good name of St. Peter to justify such a frequently abused position.

Luther didn't help matters, but he wasn't the root of liberalism. That award goes to the Hellenistic philosophies the West (including Rome) embraced:
oodegr.com/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm

Like a broken record with you people sometimes…
You have not one but two Luther bashing threads in the catalog and every time someone keeps revealing what a joke Francis is I swear a flare goes out for people like you to come into the thread and shout
WHAT
ABOUT
LUTHER?
Living absolutely rent free in your heads…

Yeah but having too many beers on a Saturday afternoon or oogling that scantily clad billboard lady seems a bit tame compared to COVERING UP A winnie the pooh MASSIVE PEDOPHILE NETWORK

Attached: ca949c7736d7cce8e4d277b2b1f38fa8a98a8928c544a350d232b5dc74f8d284.png (513x586, 344.16K)

He already covered pedophiles when he was a cardinal in Argentine himself, makes no difference

That's not even a good reason to not be catholic. Look at their dogmas and doctrines, and compare them to the Bible. If you think they line up, be catholic, but I can tell you right now there isn't a whole lot of overlap between the two.

Both are sins. Both likely mortal, depending on mindset.

Even the bible says the bible isn't the beginning and the end of Christianity.

Do … do you think we see the Pope as a prophet?

How many times do we have to point out 2 Timothy 3:16-17? Scripture makes the man of God complete, equipped for every good work.

Your americanism is showing.

As many times as we need to point out that the words "useful" and "sufficient" don't mean the same thing, either in 2019 or back when these letters were first written.

Let's cut the translation argument off at the knees and go back to Greek.

The word used in 2 Timothy 3:16 is ὠφέλιμος (óphelimos), used four times in the bible. These are all KJV, but use whatever translation you want, the original word remains:


KJV always renders this "profitable". Now ask yourself, you being a protestant who believes in the solas, if Titus 3:8 is saying that good works are /sufficient/ for men.

Because that is how you are reading that word. And that's pretty awful exegesis.

And while we're reading the bible, have a look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15:


What is the nature of these traditions that were taught outside of the bible's writing that the bible itself places on equal footing as the apostle's writings?

Look past the words useful and sufficient in verse 16, and look at the very next verse where it says "complete" and "equipped for every good work". I don't know what planet you live on where complete doesn't mean complete, and "every good work" means there's other things needed.

That verse never says which traditions were taught, and extrabiblical traditions are not explicitly mentioned. The apostles could teach what is written to illiterate people by their word, or they could teach what is written to literate people by their epistle, but to say that this verse means there are traditions outside of what is contained in the Bible is a leap in logic. And besides that, why would the apostles teach traditions that go against the Bible? Either the apostles taught people things that go against the Bible (making their traditions heresy), or the catholic church started to follow traditions that go against the Bible somewhere between the apostles and now.

Cmon man. It says that the "man of god" may be perfect, which is the goal of all Christians. It does not say that the bible is self-sufficient. Read the words that are actually there.

Right, because the Bible isn't the beginning and end of Christianity. You accuse me of making a leap in logic when you read stuff into another verse that simply isn't there.


And for you to say that those words were the bible, only the bible, and nothing but the bible, is also a leap in logic.


Who said anything about "against"? Against implies contradiction. It is not contradiction to teach that which is in harmony with the bible yet not explicitly mentioned therein.

Are you dense? Look at the whole sentence now, the one that's separated over the two verses. It says (and I removed the bit that confuses you without changing the meaning) "all scripture is breathed out by God,…, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work".

I apologize, I spoke a bit poorly there and that's not right of me to do. We're all brothers in christ and I shouldn't talk to a brother like that, please forgive me. I can understand us having different views but I shouldn't be rude about it.

The Pope has the unique power to set Catholic doctrine. I'm aware there are stipulations and checks surrounding the whole "papal infallibility" thing, but that single aspect of centralized power still fulfils the main purpose of a prophet, even if followers of the church are reluctant to label him as one. The Orthodox for example, do not even have an office that can function that way, as they rely on ecumenical councils to even propose doctrines, and require later generations of councils to verify such proposals before they're finally accepted. It's a very different dynamic to how the Papal structure is set up.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church in electing the Pope as the visible head of the earthly church, and grants to the Pope the charism of teaching infallibly - which is not the same as prophecy, since we do not believe that there is to be new public Revelation, only the ongoing mining of the deposit of faith.

That just sounds like semantics. Once the Pope is elected, if the Holy Spirit is primarily guiding that one person above all others for matters of doctrine, how is that functionally any different from a prophet? Is it just because the Pope doesn't label it as a revelation? Because I don't see how an elected prophet figure is any better or more justifiable than a non-elected prophet figure, when they still carry out the same functions with roughly the same amount of authority.

The Holy Spirit guides the whole of the Church. I know this is difficult to understand, but you can actually check with like the KoC or other organizations and read their texts and such to understand more. If you choose to remain ignorant, that's fine; but remember that you're competing with 2,000 years of knowledge. How smart do you think you actually are?

Nah lad, not the guy you are replying to but this man was tried by 12, as were many other wolves in sheeps clothing who ruined the lives of countless young men and women, and was convicted. The Catholic church turned a blind eye this time, and many times in the past, and kept child molesters in positions were they could groom almost as many victims as they wanted. This is coming from a confirmed Catholic. These "priests" deserve life in prison and their defenders need to really consider whether they are placing their faith in Christ as the Church and God asks us to do or if they are placing their faith in Men. The Pope is not infallible, lets not fulfill the stereotypes prots paint of us. We can't fix this until we admit the problem.
One last note, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Christians are not exempt from the laws of the nation they live in, in fact we should respect the governments of our nations, including America if we happen to live in the USA. That means respect their laws and legal processes. Trial by 12 may not be infallible but it is definitely a tried and true time tested system that brings about honest results exponentially more than shoddy ones.

dude, I'm Orthodox. That argument literally doesn't work on us. Our bishops manage to employ the Holy Spirit through the whole church much the same way, except we don't place anyone in such an elevated position that they may then even remotely resemble a prophet. Governance in the Orthodox Church is much more bottom-up and reliant on the smaller individual communities than the Papal governance structure is. It's frustrating that you guys are always so quick to paint everyone else as ignorant, when virtually none of you ever seem to know much about the Orthodox brothers you're criticizing. We're just as old as you guys, and have well thought out reasons for doing things the way we do compared to the rest of the West. Disrespect Protestants all you want,but it would behoove you guys to show some humility to the very church you broke away from at least.

(cont)
Also, to imply that the papacy as it exists now goes back 2,000 years is a bit of a stretch to say the least. The early church fathers didn't exactly express viewing the bishop of Rome to be that special.

We all know that you see it that way, but I wish you Orthodox would stop pretending that the Papacy was invented in 1054.
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” -Cyprian of Carthage 251 A.D.
753 years before the Schism Cyprian believed the bishop of Rome to be very special indeed, even the method and measure of Christian unity.

He's not saved, obviously.
He's king heretic teaching salvation by works

Friendly reminder that the Catholic Church has never taught that we earn God's love by works, rather we are granted the unearned gift of grace which consequently carries the necessity of doing good works.
James 2:14-26
Francis is definitely a bad Pope though

You and I have different understandings of works it seems.
It is the catholic claim that participation in sacraments is required to receive grace.

It is the Catholic teaching that there are two kinds of grace, sanctifying grace and actual (active) grace. The sacraments are conduits through which God's grace flows to us. Actual graces (active intervention/presence of God) exist outside the sacraments and even outside the Catholic Church, and you do not have to participate in the sacraments to receive actual graces. It is theoretically possible that through God's actual graces (active interventions) a person outside the Church could be led to Salvation, but would be far, far more difficult.

Are both types you named salvific?
Either way, the normative means of salvation is participation in those works called sacraments, with alleged "invincible ignorance" exceptions that allow for the doctrine to directly contradict itself.
The Bible's plan of salvation is by faith alone. Alone means this faith is the only criteria God considers, not that the Christian life is not marked by good works.
John 3:16 whosoever believes will not perish.

"Sanctifying grace stays in the soul. It’s what makes the soul holy; it gives the soul supernatural life. More properly, it is supernatural life.

Actual grace, by contrast, is a supernatural push or encouragement. It’s transient. It doesn’t live in the soul, but acts on the soul from the outside, so to speak. It’s a supernatural kick in the pants. It gets the will and intellect moving so we can seek out and keep sanctifying grace."
Baptism is a sacrament as long as it is done with water in the name of the trinity, so even Protestants get some sanctifying grace.
It isn't contradictory at all. As I explained, God's graces are actual or sanctifying. God's actual graces can save a person who never heard the Gospel so long as that person did not sin (to the best of their knowledge).
God considers a person's works, we will all account for our actions on the day of judgement.
Your interpretation of the Bible is that salvation is by faith alone. The Bible is entirely congruent with the teachings of the Church, she compiled the Bible after all, it is only a man's interpretation of the Bible which sees the Bible as contradicting the teaching of the Church.

Grace is the forgiveness God gives us even though we don't deserve it. It's not "supernatural life", it's not "a supernatural kick in the pants" that "gets the will and intellect moving". These are useless platitudes. Do a little systematic theology.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. It is not optional. But there is such a thing as baptism of desire, so a person who is driving to go get baptized gets hit by a truck on their way there is not damned. Or a person who wants to love God but gets hit by the proverbial truck of being in the wrong place/time of historical circumstance can be saved.

The invincibly ignorant are not "unbaptized", they are baptized by God's grace, like the person who gets hit by a bus on the way to get baptized. Is this actually too nuanced for you or are you just sperging on purpose?

Nope, here your catechism is exclusively referring to the rite of water baptism.
see 1278

Ad hominem

Grace is not reducible to mere forgiveness. Grace is the presence and action of God. Physically participating in the conduits of God's activity is the way that God participates with us. We meet Christ in communion, and He meets us. He has already sacrificed Himself for us, He has already forgiven us, we go to mass to be in His presence (read:grace, AKA presence)

This is a common awful translation in prot/heretic circles. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, translate it as "undeserved kindness"

golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm

"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …..even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." -St. Maximus the Confessor ~650 A.D.
400 years before the Schism.

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" - St Cyprian at the Council of Carthage

People believed the bishop of Rome to have a place of authority over other bishops for hundreds of years before the schism happened. I grant that some did not, but it is simply disingenuous to claim that "Papism" came into existence in the 11th century, it existed for hundreds of years before the Eastern church schismed over it.

"Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist."

So you didn't read the link you responded to I gather. The point was that the entire concept of an earthly primacy existing in the church makes no sense, and was only put forward to justify a new interpretation of the universal church that Romans (like Cyprian) were advocating for political reasons. Prior to this politically motivated interpretation of the church, there was no such concept as primacy, period. Nevermind the primacy of Peter (who just so happened to be a convenient figure to fill the new theoretical role this church interpretation required), nor the Papacy. The way the office of the papacy historically originated is literally backwards from how Catholics argue to justify it.

From THIS ROCK (December 1992) – the magazine of Catholic apologetics
QUESTION: Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the "universal bishop" and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?

ANSWER: No. Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church, never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title "universal bishop" could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other "bishops" were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

But that isn't to say that the title didn't – and doesn't – have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other "bishops" are not really successors to the apostles, it's false.

lol

It made sense to a lot of people for hundreds of years before the Eastern Church schismed over it. You Orthodox love to talk about the perceived errors of Augustine, but why should we believe that Augustine was in error and Cyprian was not?

who said he wasn't? You're literally just seeing what you want to see at this point, because neither my comment, nor the link you responded to (which you clearly didn't read) defended anything Cyprian said. Once again, the entire concept of the primacy was devised with the explicit purpose of granting Rome more power.

The title of "Pope" might've been around for a while, but the powers that come with the office of the Papacy are certainly a much more recent creation:
orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=39:the-vatican-dogma