A new ‘creed to Pope Francis’ prayed at Mass in Mexico

Utterly disgusting stuff! Sickening

Stabat said:

Utterly disgusting stuff! Sickening

Click to expand...

My first reaction was a queasy feeling. I resisted and did not actually hurl.

Nobody, but nobody, would have said the same thing about the last six popes. Nobody.

What do you say when the "vicar of Christ" becomes the anti-Christ? So much for the idea of the papacy as a guard against heresy?

I can't get around it - the doctrine of ex-cathedra is a sham - a loophole that allows all kinds of "stuff" to be said. The doctrine of ex-cathedra did not exists for the first 1800 years of Christianity.

Markie Boy said:

What do you say when the "vicar of Christ" becomes the anti-Christ? So much for the idea of the papacy as a guard against heresy?

I can't get around it - the doctrine of ex-cathedra is a sham - a loophole that allows all kinds of "stuff" to be said. The doctrine of ex-cathedra did not exists for the first 1800 years of Christianity.

Click to expand...

Saying a doctrine of 'ex cathedra' didn't exist for 1800 years is a confusion in terms. The doctrine is 'infallibility'. The term 'ex cathedra' is there to distinguish and limit infallibility because the doctrine has always been understood as limited. It has long been obvious that not every utterance of the pope is somehow blessed to be true. This was so in the hard cases discussed at Vatican I. But infallibility has long roots in the Church, going back all the way to Peter, who, as you remember, said many wrong things.

The point with this despicable new 'creed' is that it states that the opinions of pope Francis are to be held as true. That would be laughable if it was not so dangerous. The reality is that pope Francis can't even articulate his answer to the Dubia without running afoul of infallibility. And thus the answer he probably wants to give to the Dubia sticks in his craw and goes nowhere. He is restrained by the Holy Spirit from making the 'ex cathedra' statements he might want to make. But he has let loose all sorts of nonsense as his opinions, or as imprudent prudential decisions.

Pope Francis might be an antichrist. He might just be the opening act for another far worse antichrist though.

Wow. Just... wow. It's hard for me to imagine a circumstance under which I'd turn my back to the celebrant, but this might qualify.

chevyontheriver said:

Pope Francis might be an antichrist.

Click to expand...

As unhappy as I am with much of what Pope Francis has done, I think that that goes a bit far.

chilehed said:

Wow. Just... wow. It's hard for me to imagine a circumstance under which I'd turn my back to the celebrant, but this might qualify.

Click to expand...

I think I would turn my back too ... and walk toward the door. I have yet to do that, but then I am rather picky about where I attend.

The extra-sad thing is that probably nobody but Pope Francis himself could convince them to stop doing this. If he knows about this, he should tell them, no differently than when his predecessor Pope John Paul II told the Sandinistas in Nicaragua back in the 1980s that they are to "regularize themselves within the Church" (meaning, in this context, that they are not to use the Church to amplify or promote the Sandinista political program). Sounds like that would be good advice for these people, too, so the question should maybe be: where is Pope Francis to give it? Does he just not know, or does he know and think it's okay, or...what? What is going on?

Also, it's really weird that it's a creed to Pope Francis. There are creeds attributed to people and/or attached to places and events (e.g., the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Jerusalemite Creed of St. Epiphanius recited by the Armenians, the Creed of Ps.-Athanasius, etc.), but I've never heard of a creed to a person. Dunno what to make of that.

chilehed said:

As unhappy as I am with much of what Pope Francis has done, I think that that goes a bit far.

Click to expand...

Which is why I wrote 'might be' rather than 'is' and 'an' rather than 'the'. I don't actually think pope Francis is the antichrist. Just a bad pope on his bad days at least.

I can't remember who it was, maybe Steve Skojec, who commented about this 'creed' and saying it basically validated all of the propaganda that protestants have been regurgitating about us for years.

Fenwick said:

I can't remember who it was, maybe Steve Skojec, who commented about this 'creed' and saying it basically validated all of the propaganda that protestants have been regurgitating about us for years.

Click to expand...

It pretty much does. The RCC really doesn't have a leg to stand on for much these days in that respect.

One must admit - Sola Scriptura does week out a lot of this junk. Even though I am a regular Mass attender - I do adhere to Sola Scriptura. If it's does not have a Biblical basis I just don't pay much attention to it.

Markie Boy said:

It pretty much does. The RCC really doesn't have a leg to stand on for much these days in that respect.

One must admit - Sola Scriptura does week out a lot of this junk. Even though I am a regular Mass attender - I do adhere to Sola Scriptura. If it's does not have a Biblical basis I just don't pay much attention to it.

Click to expand...

No I disagree with you there. I was protestant, and sola scriptura as a principle can't even stand up to it's own name. But I'm not trying to escape Catholicism either.

Fenwick said:

No I disagree with you there. I was protestant, and sola scriptura as a principle can't even stand up to it's own name. But I'm not trying to escape Catholicism either.

Click to expand...

I'd agree and disagree both. I think the idea that I really stick to is that nothing done should contradict scripture.

Also, there is nothing more needed for salvation than what the Apostles taught, and the only record we have left of that is Scripture.

If I may we have more than just the Bible to see what the Apostles taught, we have the early Church Fathers whom a few were direct disciples of the Apostles themselves and St. Paul tells us to go by what is written and what is oral in teaching not just written. Not looking to argue just wanted to point out that there is no where that says to go by only what is written down even if we feel we should.

Markie Boy said:

I'd agree and disagree both. I think the idea that I really stick to is that nothing done should contradict scripture.

Also, there is nothing more needed for salvation than what the Apostles taught, and the only record we have left of that is Scripture.

Click to expand...

Remember the Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written. The process of choosing books of the Bible spanned centuries and any text that was not 100 percent in keeping with Catholic teaching was rejected. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around.

Markie Boy said:

I'd agree and disagree both. I think the idea that I really stick to is that nothing done should contradict scripture.

Also, there is nothing more needed for salvation than what the Apostles taught, and the only record we have left of that is Scripture.

Click to expand...

I understand you've been struggling with the Catholic faith for a long time, but you and I both know that what you're propagating here isn't Catholicism. What you're doing is just brinkmanship to see how far you can push back against Catholic teaching without committing an infraction.

Please don't think that your position of straddling the fence by adhering to protestant theology but attending Mass gives you license to criticize the Catholic faith unabashedly.

I understand. When you read this Creed to Pope Francis it smells of the One World Order, trying to focus power in the few.

Help me out here. When so many of the clergy, local up to the pope, teach what is so false, one feels like they have to test all things - just like Scripture tells us to. So what I'm stuck on - is what do you test them against? I understand the early fathers, but they made many errors as well - Irenaeus got Jesus age wrong, Augustine though conversion by the sword was OK if preaching didn't work, and Pope Gelasius taught a view of the Eucharist that does not match transubstantiation. the list is long.

I come back to the only thing that is steady is Scripture.

Which Scripture is steady? The 66 Protestant Bible? The Catholic/Orthodox Bible? The Ethiopian Bible? You see the Scriptures aren't really "steady" and it was the Church in the 400's I believe that complied the Scriptures so who would know how Scriptures should be interpreted than the ones whom complied it?

Protestants can tend to interpret Scriptures in.. well wacky ways because they only use their minds and nothing else so we got Rapture, OSAS, Not OSAS, countles other things, countless heresies from Ancient times always make a comeback. Even I get confused.