Featured Explain about atheists to me

Sorry, wasn't done, was just catching my second wind. Here we go ...

 

Why do you support murder?

 

How long is it going to take to hear ONE BAPTISM say ABORTION is wrong? we have waited more then 6 months, just to get bob to admit it.


SDA OFFICIAL STANCE:


"Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean toward abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population." -- Neal C Wilson President of the General Conference (SDA POPE)

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1991/08/abortion-history-of-adventist-guidelines


Seventh Day Adventist support the murder of children because they see it as a way to control population.

 

Remember, the difference between what Romanism defines as "innocent" vs "guilty". To execute a "guilty" obstinate "heretic" is not to kill an "innocent" life according to their own defintion:

[CCC]

" ... We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. ... 391 ...

... 391 Roman Catechism I, 5, 11; ..." - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM#$PN​

How did Romanism define "sins" earlier?

" … IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131 ..." [Roman Catholic Catechism; Mortal Sin] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

"... The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Sin] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM​

Remember it is said and written by them that,

"The pope's will stands for [in the place of] reason."

" ...quia in his, quae vult, ei est pro ratione voluntas (Instit. de jure natu. § sed quod principi. haec quippe.)

and he can do these things, because his will stands for reason. ..." - DECRETALES D. GREGORII PAPAE IX, SUAE INTEGRITATI UNA CUM GLOSSIS RESTTUTE Ad exemplar Romanum diligenter recognite, LUGDUNI, 1584, liber I, titulus VII – De Translatione Episcopi, cap. III, col. 217. (138)​

What was "Heresy" according to her?

[Roman Catholic Church Encyclopedia, referred to from here on as CCE, when needful]

"... Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. …" [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Heresy] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_VIII​

[CCC]

" … 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11 ..." [Roman Catholic Catechism; PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST; SECTION TWO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; CHAPTER ONE YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; Article 1 THE FIRST COMMANDMENT; I. "You Shall Worship the Lord Your God and Him Only Shall You Serve"; Ending Notation 11, refers to Canon 751 of Roman Catholic Canon Law] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7C.HTM​

 

The reason, for my responses, is because of the teachings of Romanism, it creates atheists and atheism, as happened in the poor country of France. It threw off the absurd religion of Romanism, and all its contradictory factions, and went in the opposite direction.

The history of France, testifies to these things. I wouldn't want anyone to accuse me that I was derailing the thread, for no indeed, I am on point, on topic, for because of the Beast from the Sea [Revelation 13], the Beast from the Bottomless Pit [Revelation 11] arose and gave it a deadly wound in 1798 AD. The King of the North [religious humanism] was struck by the King of the South [secular humanism], and yet both come from the same root.

Back to the point:

Is this old news, or is it rather current standing Roman Catholic Canon Law? - It is current:

" … Can. 4 Acquired rights and privileges granted to physical or juridic persons up to this time by the Apostolic See remain intact if they are in use and have not been revoked, unless the canons of this Code expressly revoke them. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS LIBER I. DE NORMIS GENERALIBUS] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM

" … Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS LIBER I. DE NORMIS GENERALIBUS] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM

" … Can. 9 Laws regard the future, not the past, unless they expressly provide for the past. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS LIBER I. DE NORMIS GENERALIBUS; TITLE I. ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS (Cann. 7 - 22)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM​

This Canon allows for those Laws which it does not expressly forbid [Canon 4] to remain in full effect, already being decreed.

" … Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS LIBER I. DE NORMIS GENERALIBUS; TITLE I. ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS (Cann. 7 - 22)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM​

This Canon allows those laws which are meant to be universal to still be universal in effect for all whom they were issued.

" … Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS LIBER I. DE NORMIS GENERALIBUS; TITLE I. ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS (Cann. 7 - 22)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3.HTM​

This Canon declares that the "Legislator" [read "Pope"] is the authentic interpreter of the Canon Laws and to whomsoever they decide to entrust with such authority. They give the "authentic interpretation" of any Canon Laws.

" … Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws. ..." [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS LIBER I. DE NORMIS GENERALIBUS; TITLE II. CUSTOM (Cann. 23 - 28)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4.HTM​

This Canon is probably one of the most dangerous, as it clearly indicates that the past "custom" [that which had been done previously in the past, used as examples, precedence] is the "best interpreter" of current Canon Law, and therefore pre-defines its subtle terminology and terms. So while the current Canon may not use words like "burn", "stake", "death", etc., this is because the past laws already allows for those definitions along with specific torture and death to heretics, and simply uses other language [ie. "just penalty", "The phrase "a just penalty" means that a penalty (e.g., restitution, interdict, excommunication) can be tailored to fit the crime." - http://www.canonlaw.info/blogarch05.htm or "...this phrase allows great flexibility in responding to a particular situation." - http://www.canonlaw.info/blogarch05.htm] to express those uses.

The Roman Catholic Canon Law is overwhelmingly given in 'lawyer speak', being most careful and circumspect to avoid openly using, what would be to most, 'offensive' terms.

 

Furthermore:

" … Can. 129 §1. Those who have received sacred orders are qualified, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, for the power of governance, which exists in the Church by divine institution and is also called the power of jurisdiction. ..." [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS LIBER I. DE NORMIS GENERALIBUS; TITLE VIII. THE POWER OF GOVERNANCE (Cann. 129 - 144)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PF.HTM

" … Can. 135 §1. The power of governance is distinguished as legislative, executive, and judicial. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS LIBER I. DE NORMIS GENERALIBUS; TITLE VIII. THE POWER OF GOVERNANCE (Cann. 129 - 144)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PF.HTM

" … Can. 391 §1. It is for the diocesan bishop to govern the particular church entrusted to him with legislative, executive, and judicial power according to the norm of law.

§2. The bishop exercises legislative power himself. He exercises executive power either personally or through vicars general or episcopal vicars according to the norm of law. He exercises judicial power either personally or through the judicial vicar and judges according to the norm of law. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK II. THE PEOPLE OF GOD LIBER II. DE POPULO DEI; PART II. THE HIERARCHICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH; SECTION II. PARTICULAR CHURCHES AND THEIR GROUPINGS; TITLE I. PARTICULAR CHURCHES AND THE AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED IN THEM (Cann. 368 – 430); CHAPTER II. BISHOPS; Art. 2. DIOCESAN BISHOPS] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1E.HTM​

These Canons clearly define that those who receive "sacred orders" are "qualified" for the "power of governance", also called the "power of jurisdiction", which being in the "Church" [Roman Catholic Church] by "Divine Institution" [supposedly ordained of GOD ALMIGHTY, and subsequently we are provided with their "proof-texts" from Scripture of such] and states that such "power" is "legislative" [makes the Laws], "executive" [executes/carries out those Laws and their sentences] and "judicial" [judging and judgment in the matters of those Laws].

This gives unlimited reign to whomever is in the seat of the pope, for the dogma is declared that the whole world [whether spiritual, being first, or secular, being second or subservient to the spiritual] ought to obey that position in whatsoever is lawfully [the Roman Catholic Church's law] decreed, and that none may go against such that are decreed without incurring whatever penalties exist or are promulgated for so doing.

" … Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

1/ in addition to the case mentioned in ⇒ can. 1364, §1, a person who teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council or who obstinately rejects the doctrine mentioned in ⇒ can. 750, §2 or in ⇒ can. 752 and who does not retract after having been admonished by the Apostolic See or an ordinary;

2/ a person who otherwise does not obey a legitimate precept or prohibition of the Apostolic See, an ordinary, or a superior and who persists in disobedience after a warning. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE II DELICTS AGAINST ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES AND THE FREEDOM OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1370 - 1377)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P53.HTM

" … Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE II DELICTS AGAINST ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES AND THE FREEDOM OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1370 - 1377)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P53.HTM

" … Can. 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE II DELICTS AGAINST ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES AND THE FREEDOM OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1370 - 1377)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P53.HTM

" … Can. 1393 A person who violates obligations imposed by a penalty can be punished with a just penalty. …" [BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE V. DELICTS AGAINST SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS (Cann. 1392 - 1396)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P56.HTM​

Thus this Canon can then be used to give increasingly and exponential "just penalties" for anyone who continuously "violates" the "obligations" from the previous "penalty" or "just penalty" [single or multiple] handed down from the "judicial" authority. This means that a person who is found to be of "obstinate ill will" [such as an unrepentant "heretic"] can ultimately be handed over to be [even after "censure", "excommunication", or etc] destroyed by the state at the express direction and command of the Church [Roman Catholic Church].

 

Furthermore:

" … Can. 601 The evangelical counsel of obedience, undertaken in a spirit of faith and love in the following of Christ obedient unto death, requires the submission of the will to legitimate superiors, who stand in the place of God, when they command according to the proper constitutions. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK II. THE PEOPLE OF GOD LIBER II. DE POPULO DEI; PART III. INSTITUTES OF CONSECRATED LIFE AND SOCIETIES OF APOSTOLIC LIFE; SECTION I: INSTITUTES OF CONSECRATED LIFE; TITLE I: NORMS COMMON TO ALL INSTITUTES OF CONSECRATED LIFE (Cann. 573 - 606)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1Y.HTM​

"who stand in the place of God [ie Jesus Christ]" is literally English, for:

[Greek] anti-Christ, or

[Latin] vicarius Christi.

The Roman Catholic Canon Law on Heresy (let us apply it to what we have already learned. Look for "faith and morals" [remember what has been said of this previously?], "sacred magisterium", "gravity", "doctrines...contrary", "proposed definitively", "rejects", "opposed", "heresy is...", "just penalty", "scandals"):

" … Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

[see also: "Ad Tuendam Fidem", for further clarification on Can. 750.; "… The new text of Canon 750 reads in pertinent part: “Each and every thing definitively proposed by the magisterium of the Church regarding faith and morals … must also be firmly accepted and held; one who denies [such] propositions…opposes the doctrine of the Catholic Church.” Gone now, of course, is any argument that only matters recognized as “divinely revealed” can be the subject of the Church’s coercive power. At the same time Canon 750 was modified, Canon 1371 was amended to state that anyone who violates Canon 750, as amended obviously, can now be punished by a “just penalty”. Once more, the concerns of Canon 18 that ecclesiastical penal law not be read more expansively than the text of the law will reasonably admit have been satisfied, for Canon 1371 now makes express use of Canon 750. …" - http://www.canonlaw.info/a_adtuendam.htm or "… in the end, penalties (especially flexible sanctions such as Canon 1369's "just penalty") were placed in the Code by the Legislator to help bishops defend important ecclesiastical values …" - http://www.canonlaw.info/blogarch09.htm] or "… In using the phrase “a just penalty”, the Legislator made available the entire range of ecclesiastical sanctions, whether censures (namely, excommunication, interdict, or [clerical] suspension) or expiatory penalties, including deprivation of office (1983 CIC 1336) ..." - http://www.canonlaw.info/a_adtuendam.htm]
​

" … Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

" … Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE I. DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM

" … Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE I. DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM
​

What are these "other uses of the instruments of social communication" that if/should a person uses while having or promoting "contempt against … the Church is to be punished with a just penalty" ["Church", being only the Roman Catholic Church]?

It can be broadly defined as anything that it is needed to be included in the definition, such as the Internet [general], texting, email, phone calls, voice-over-network, chat-rooms, blogs, webpages, posters, newspapers, magazines, mail, personal letter, billboard, advertisement [in whatever form, message on a sky plane, on a blimp, etc.], television [commercial, news, programs, etc.], radio [including any song, music, music sheet, poem, etc.], hands/fingers [sign language], satellite, lasers [light emissions/waves], drum, smoke signal, diggeri-doo, two tin cans and a string, red-light-green-light [well maybe not that one, unless Canon...oh nevermind], etc.

It includes anything and everything it is ever needed to be [even including your brain, for it is an "instrument of social communication", therefore even your very 'thoughts' toward the "Church" are provided for in this particular Canon – thought police indeed].

 

Furthermore, Canon Law states:

" … TITLE VII.

GENERAL NORM (Can. 1399)

Can. 1399 In addition to the cases established here or in other laws, the external violation of a divine or canonical law can be punished by a just penalty only when the special gravity of the violation demands punishment and there is an urgent need to prevent or repair scandals. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE VII. GENERAL NORM (Can. 1399)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P58.HTM

" … Can. 1326 §1. A judge can punish the following more gravely than the law or precept has established:

1/ a person who after a condemnation or after the declaration of a penalty continues so to offend that from the circumstances the obstinate ill will of the person can prudently be inferred;

2/ a person who has been established in some dignity or who has abused a position of authority or office in order to commit the delict;

3/ an accused person who, when a penalty has been established against a delict based on negligence, foresaw the event and nonetheless omitted precautions to avoid it, which any diligent person would have employed.

§2. If the penalty established in the cases mentioned in §1 is latae sententiae, another penalty or a penance can be added. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART I. DELICTS AND PENALTIES IN GENERAL; TITLE III. THE SUBJECT LIABLE TO PENAL SANCTIONS (Cann. 1321 - 1330)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM​

Therefore this Canon [1326] allows for graver and more severe penalties "than the law or precept has established" on those [heretics of "obstinate ill will" [immediately "latae sententiae"; instantly in effect], etc] who repeatedly refuse the Roman Catholic Churches "authority", doctrines, teachings, decisions, rites and judgments, etc. Escalation and continued refusal leads to punishment and ultimately the death penalty [handed over to the state for execution of sentence by the judgment of Rome and to be carried out under its express direction, for the "state" is to be subject to "her"], as it has in the past.

" … Can. 747 … §2. It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM​

Notice that last part again, "...or salvation of the soul requires it." [Roman Catholic Theology misunderstands the Biblical teaching of the "soul"; see Genesis 2:7 and numerous other texts to begin with a correct Biblical understanding, for mankind does not 'have' a 'soul'; mankind, made of dust of the ground and breath of God, is "a living soul".]

" … Can. 1654 §1. Unless the text of the sentence leaves it to the judgment of the executor, the executor must execute the sentence according to the obvious sense of the words. ..." [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VII PROCESSES; PART II. THE CONTENTIOUS TRIAL; SECTION I. THE ORDINARY CONTENTIOUS TRIAL; TITLE XI. THE EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE (Cann. 1650 – 1655)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P6H.HTM

"… 9. As an external, visible and independent society, the Church cannot renounce penal law. However, penalties are generally to be ferendae sententiae and are to be inflicted and remitted only in the external forum. Latae sententiae penalties are to be reduced to a few cases and are to be inflicted only for the most serious offenses. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; Latin INTRODUCTION to Canon Law] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1.HTM

" … Can. 1401 By proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates:

1/ cases which regard spiritual matters or those connected to spiritual matters;

2/ the violation of ecclesiastical laws and all those matters in which there is a question of sin, in what pertains to the determination of culpability and the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VII PROCESSES; Part I. TRIALS IN GENERAL (Cann. 1400 - 1403)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P59.HTM​

This Canon can therefore be used to set up a tribunal and judge anything of "faith and morals" [as defined by the Roman Catholic Church [pontificate or council]] and anything "she" deems a "spiritual" matter and those things which are "connected" to such, especially including those "matters in which there is a question of sin" ["sin" being defined under the very "faith and morals" of the Roman Catholic Church]. Therefore, this Canon, combined with others, reveals that if the Roman Catholic Church says that it is "sin" to eat meat on Lenten Fridays, then "she" is the judge in and over the matter and can punish at will, even to the death if that is far as it goes in rejection of such a foolish doctrine of the devil [lent; 1 Timothy 4:3 KJB].

 

No wonder Romanism causes athiesm to spring up, since it does exactly the opposite of what is taught by Jesus and true Christianity [I mean how many have been driven to insanity because of the eternal tormenting in hellfire idea, or who could not understand a God of justice and love because such a twisted picture and character were painted to Him, or for the untold slaughters in the name of God ...], and so because "she" would not repent of her sins, the very Kings of the earth, with which she is in 'bed' now with, will again turn on her and is going to burn her by fire [Revelation 17 KJB], even as an adulterous daughter of a High priest:

" … Can. 1311 The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART I. DELICTS AND PENALTIES IN GENERAL; TITLE II. PENAL LAW AND PENAL PRECEPT (Cann. 1313 - 1320)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4V.HTM

" … Can. 1312 §1. The following are penal sanctions in the Church:

1/ medicinal penalties, or censures, which are listed in ⇒ cann. 1331-1333;

2/ expiatory penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336.

§2. The law can establish other expiatory penalties which deprive a member of the Christian faithful of some spiritual or temporal good and which are consistent with the supernatural purpose of the Church.

§3. Penal remedies and penances are also used; the former especially to prevent delicts, the latter to substitute for or to increase a penalty. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART I. DELICTS AND PENALTIES IN GENERAL; TITLE I THE PUNISHMENT OF DELICTS IN GENERAL (Cann. 1311 - 1312)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4U.HTM

" … Can. 1314 Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART I. DELICTS AND PENALTIES IN GENERAL; TITLE II. PENAL LAW AND PENAL PRECEPT (Cann. 1313 - 1320)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4V.HTM​

Who then is the Highest authority on earth according to Roman Catholic Church doctrine, deciding not only "faith and morals", but also determines all things by "law" and "divine institution":

" … Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VII PROCESSES; Part I. TRIALS IN GENERAL (Cann. 1400 – 1403); TITLE I. THE COMPETENT FORUM (Cann. 1404 - 1416)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5A.HTM

" … Can. 1406 §1. If the prescript of ⇒ can. 1404 is violated, the acts and decisions are considered as not to have been placed.

§2. In the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 1405, the incompetence of other judges is absolute. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VII PROCESSES; Part I. TRIALS IN GENERAL (Cann. 1400 – 1403); TITLE I. THE COMPETENT FORUM (Cann. 1404 - 1416)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5A.HTM

" … Can. 1405 §1. It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge in the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 1401:

1/ those who hold the highest civil office of a state;

2/ cardinals;

3/ legates of the Apostolic See and, in penal cases, bishops;

4/ other cases which he has called to his own judgment.

§2. A judge cannot review an act or instrument confirmed specifically (in forma specifica) by the Roman Pontiff without his prior mandate.

§3. Judgment of the following is reserved to the Roman Rota:

1/ bishops in contentious matters, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1419, §2;

2/ an abbot primate or abbot superior of a monastic congregation and a supreme moderator of religious institutes of pontifical right;

3/ dioceses or other physical or juridic ecclesiastical persons which do not have a superior below the Roman Pontiff. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VII PROCESSES; Part I. TRIALS IN GENERAL (Cann. 1400 – 1403); TITLE I. THE COMPETENT FORUM (Cann. 1404 - 1416)] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5A.HTM

" … Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

" … Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

" … Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM​

 

Roman Catholic Encyclopedia on Roman Catholic Canon Law on Capital Punishment:

" … Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisability of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations. …" [Roman Catholic Encyclopedia Online: Capital Punishment] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm​

 

The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia states very plainly that Roman Catholic Canon Law forbids "clerics" [a very specific term [see Canon 207 §1. and Canon/s 232 → 293], and allowing all other manner of mankind elsewhere to do so directly ["shed blood"] by/under "her" [even "clerics"] specific direction] from "shed[ding]" "blood" [this leaves quite a bit of wiggle room, for the "cleric" [though supposedly unable to directly "shed blood"] may direct the torture most intimately and personally through another to obtain any and all "information", "confession", "recantation", etc. from the subject [human being] present; and so thus they would directly avoid having to "shed blood" themselves; though they would still incur "irregularity" under Canon Law, but even still they could just simply be absolved of the "irregularity" by another "cleric" at hand].

It also allows even the "clerics" to perform all manner of other means of "torture" which does not "shed blood" [and burning at the stake was not considered shedding blood, neither drowning, nor strangulation, nor having them starve to death, nor having them freeze to death by setting them naked into the wilderness in the mid of winter, or death from pure isolation, etc]; such as the various vindictive means applied in the "Spanish Inquisition" [ie., garrucha/strappado, toca/interrogatorio mejorado del agua ['waterboarding'], and potro/rack - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Torture] and other Inquisitions [and other means, ie., 'burning the feet', 'hot irons', 'internal damage through blunt forces', 'blinding', 'breaking of bones', 'confiscation of all wealth/property', 'destruction of property' and 'animal life' [for the rules states the "clerics" could not "shed blood" of the "human"] or causing harm/distress of a another church member or family member, and other means most cruel and malevolent].

"She" claims to be able to do all these things zealously in "just war" against any and all dangerous and wily foes that have raised and fomented rebellion against "her". For "she" claims [as was seen in the first latin text quoted from Gratian's Decretals] that to destroy such excommunicated heretics is to not "murder" them, but is instead, as "she" claims, just destruction of rabid "beasts", those persons no longer regarded by "her" as being "innocent" human beings and no longer being worthy of the "right to life" in "her" eyes.

Roman Catholic Catechism [Just War]

[CCC] " … 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. ..." [Roman Catholic Online Catechism; PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST; SECTION TWO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; CHAPTER TWO YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF; Article 5 THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT; III. Safeguarding Peace] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM​

Roman Catholic Catechism [Just War]

[CCC] " … 2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors. ..." [Roman Catholic Online Catechism; PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST; SECTION TWO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; CHAPTER TWO YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF; Article 5 THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT; III. Safeguarding Peace] - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM​

Let it now be asked rhetorically, "What power on earth boldly declares that it determines what a "legitimate government" is?" It was also stated that, "… She forbade clerics to shed blood. …", but this was seen for what it is, in that "she" hides behind words and definitions of "her" own making, for those very "clerics" were most intimate in the oversight and direction of who, how, why, when, where and in what manner to "shed blood" [the very mind behind the actions themselves] and of various means of torture which did not involve methods to "shed blood". It was stated that, "… the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. …", yet it was shown that both "clemency" and "mercy" were only for those who "repented"/"recanted" thoroughly, and not for those [such as "heretics"] who remained in "obstinate ill will" toward "her", no longer being "innocent".

"She" says in regards to the "practices" of "torture" that, "… It is necessary to work for their abolition. …", and "she" has been seen as meaning this in such a way as most will not begin to understand until they begin to think in "her" mindset, terms and rules/laws of engagement, for "she" actually means that they are to be abolished only when the world is converted to "her" way of thinking and teaching [just as Islamism and its 'peace' [what it really means is world-wide Sharia [Islamic law]]. So, of course "she" looks forward to it, but such an ecumenical, or even realized unity with "her" is nothing to rejoice over.

"She" then says very piously that, "… We must pray for the victims and their tormentors. …", and not only does this actually promote one false doctrine not found in scripture [the open ended idea of being able to pray for the past dead/deceased], it promotes even others still, such as the erroneous, false and dangerous theology of "purgatory".

Roman Catholic Canon Law is itself "adopted" and derived itself from Emperor Justinian's Roman Law Code, and we see this in the Roman Catholic Church's "Tribunals". [["… So the immortal "Corpus Juris Civilis" was produced, consisting of four parts: (a) Digestae seu Pondecta, (b) Institutiones, (c) Codex, (d) Authenticum seu Novellae (an excellent account of its composition is found in Bury's Gibbon, ed. Cit., IV 461-510). It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this "Corpus". It is the basis of all canon law (ecclesia vivit lege romana), and the basis of civil law in every civilized country. …"; Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Justinian I] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08578b.htm]

 

On the unity of Church/State that Roman Catholicism [and its dark twin Islamism [get into that a bit later elsewhere, have a whole list ...]], Romanism teaches [written in the negative]:

Pope Pius IX, the Syllabus of Errors [meaning it is in direct "error" to teach the following]:

"... 20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. -- Allocution "Meminit unusquisque," Sept. 30, 1861. ..." [THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX] - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

"... 24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. ..." [THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX] - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

"... 27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862. ..." [THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX] - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

"... 54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851. …" [THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX] - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

"... 55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. …" [THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX] - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

"... 75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided amongst themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power. -- "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. …" [THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX] - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

"... 76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. -- Allocutions "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850. ..." [THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX] - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

"... 77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855. ..." [THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX] - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

"... 78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. ..." [THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX] - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm​

Anyone found teaching or believing the aforesaid materials, are condemned by Romanism, are heresies, and are no longer "innocent", but are condemned guilty of the "guilt" they "latae sententiae" encurred, and are ipso facto subject to the "just penalties" she deems fit to dish out.

 

Moreso:

"Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi …

… A Bull of Pius IX (1846-78) which regulates anew the system of censures and reservations in the Catholic church. It was issued 12 October, 1869, and is practically the present penal code of the Catholic Church. …

...Pius IX, therefore, simplified them again for the three hundred years of accumulation, by the Bull "Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi". …

… According to those introductory passages, the Bull "Apostolicae Sedis" left all canonical penalties and impediments (deposition, degradation, deprivation of benefice, irregularity, etc.) as they were before, except those with which it expressly deals. And it deals expressly with those penalties only, the direct purpose of which is the reformation rather than the punishment of the person on whom they are inflicted, namely, censures (excommunication, suspension, and interdict). Moreover, it deals only with a certain class of censures. For clearness it is well to observe that a censure may be so attached to the violation of a law that the law-breaker incurs the censure in the very act of breaking the law, and a censure, as decreed binds at once the conscience of the law-breaker without the process of a trial, or the formality of a judicial sentence. In other words, the law has already pronounced sentence the moment the person who breaks the law has completed the facto of consciously breaking it; for which reason, censures thus decreed are said to be decreed per modum latae sententiae ipsoque facto incurrendae, i.e. censures of sentence pronounced and incurred by the act of breaking the law. But, on the other hand, a censure may be so attached to the breaking of a law that the law-breaker does not incur the censure until, after a legal process, it is formally imposed by a judicial sentence, for which reason censures thus decreed are called ferendae sententiae, i.e. censures of sentence to be pronounced. Censures of this latter kind were left out by this Bull, and remain just as they were before, together with those penalties above referred to, the direct purpose of which is punishment. The Bull "Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi" deals, therefore, exclusively with censures latae sententiae. Now, how has it altered or abrogated them? It abrogated all except those expressly inserted in it. Those which are inserted in it, whether old ones revived or retained, or new ones enacted, bind throughout the Catholic Church, all customs of any kind to the contrary notwithstanding, because this Bull became the source of the binding power of all and each of them, even of such as might have gone into disuse anywhere or everywhere. The censures retained are inserted in the Bull in two ways: First it makes of list of a certain number of them; Second, it inserts in a general way all those which the Council of Trent either newly enacted, or adopted from older canons as to make them its own; not those, therefore, which the Council of Trent merely confirmed, or simply adopted from older canons. …

… Finally, the Bull "Apostolicae Sedis" gives a list of twelve censures which are reserved in a special manner (speciali modo) to the Pope; so that to absolve from any of these, even a bishop requires a special delegation, in which these are specifically named. These twelve censures, except the one numbered X, were taken from the Bull "In Coena Domini" (so called because from 1364 to 1770 it was annually published at Rome, and since 1567 elsewhere on Holy Thursday ceased to be, except as an historical document. Of these eleven canonical offences, five refer to attacks on the foundation of the Church; that is, on its faith and constitution. Three refer to attacks on the power of the Church and on the free exercise of that power. The other three refer to attacks on the spiritual or temporal treasures of the Church. A few censures have been enacted since the Bull "Apostolicae Sedis" was published. These are usually mentioned and interpreted in the published commentaries on that Bull. The commentary by Avanzini and Pennacchi (Rome, 1883), the learned editors of the "Acta Sanctae Sedis", is the most complete. That issued (Prato, 1894) by the late Cardinal D'Annibale, however, if of all others to be recommended for conciseness and accuracy combined." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi] - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01645a.htm​

The writings of the Roman Catholic Church are endlessly filled with these types of "defenses", "reasons" and "explanations" for what "she" claims to be able to righteously do [eliminate heretics] in "defense" of "faith and morals", in "defense" of "common good", in defense of the "innocent".

Look for yourself, study the history so that it will not be forgotten, for it remains "her" doctrine. Many more official quotes and sources could be given as it is almost endless, and there are many books on the subject, and many commentaries on the Canon [ie, Fr Alexius M Lepicier; P. Marianus de Luca and many, many others] and Popes and Historians that have thoroughly written on the subject. Look for them, read them, read both sides.

"She" has indeed persecuted and worn out the Saints of the Most High God. "She" admits doing so "herself". ...

 

Let us also see if the Office of the Inquisition is still around...

"... Founded in 1542 by Pope Paul III with the Constitution "Licet ab initio," the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was originally called the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition as its duty was to defend the Church from heresy. It is the oldest of the Curia's nine congregations."

"Pope St. Pius X in 1908 changed the name to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It received its current name in 1965 with Pope Paul VI. Today, according to Article 48 of the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia, "Pastor Bonus", promulgated by the Holy Father John Paul II on June 28, 1988, «the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.» ..." [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] – http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_en.html​

"...faith and morals..." and "...everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's] competence..."

What have we learned on "faith and morals"?

Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger himself was the Head of this office of the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", when later He eventually became pope Benedict XVI.

"In 1981, he settled in Rome when he became Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one of the most important offices of the Roman Curia. At the time of his election as Pope, he was also Dean of the College of Cardinals, and as such the primus inter pares among the cardinals." [Benedict XVI; Wikipedia] - Pope Benedict XVI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

He may not be as charismatic as pope John Paul II [Karol Józef Wojtyła], but he is more of a theologian than his predecessor, and thus someone to be most careful of. In fact, when he stepped down from the papal See, it was a powerplay, to eliminate from their offices, those who were against the Jesuits. And thus introduced Jorge Bergoglio, Francis I... and two highpriests, one ruling, one ex-meritus, as it was in the days of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ ...

 

You have clearly gone off the deep end with this stuff. Okay, so you left the Catholic Church, for what, the revelation of a certain man from upstate New York who started a cult?

 

I can't speak for all atheists, but I know QUITE a few that engage me on spiritual issues... They believe that creationism (Ken Ham-style) is destructive to thinking clearly about issues and muddies the water regarding science and epistemology.

As a disciple of Christ, I believe God has created the world. But I would also agree with the sentiment that I just stated. I don't think Ham is a trustworthy source for biblical interpretation, interpretation of data and geological evidence, nor interpretation of scientific research. I think he sets people up to have their faith derailed when they realize that what he has taught them in the name of Christianity and the Bible is not true.

This might be true for some, but he is painting with a broad brush in a way that justifies himself and his ministry. If he truly doesn't understand why many atheists (and Christians) do not support his views, then he is not qualified to be a teacher.

 

Consider:

"... Benedict's resignation also may allow him to do what no pope has done since the High Middle Ages: lobby for his successor. The poor man is, of course, in failing health and ready to hang up the shepherd's crook. But, one can also suspect that the resignation is also a tactical move to gently channel a conclave toward a consistently conservative successor. ..." - https://www.economist.com/node/21571619/comments?page=1

"... Some cardinals are said to favor lifetime appointments and will seek a promise that the next pope will not step down, the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported Friday. The very suggestion indicates that Benedict’s decision has divided church leaders. ..." - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/w...affect-future-popes-terms.html?pagewanted=all​

Got to ask yourself, why would "cardinals" favor a "lifetime" appointment? What's in it for them?

As for the Jesuits:

"... Before his recent death, Fr. Silvano Fausti confided that the Jesuit cardinal played a decisive role in Ratzinger’s election and resignation. But other sources tend to play this role down ...

... The disclosures Fr. Fausti made regarding the 2005 Conclave are far more complex to interpret. According to his reconstruction, Martini apparently handed his votes over to Ratzinger in order to avoid “foul play” which attempted to eliminate both in order to elect “a thoroughly obsequious member of the Curia, who didn’t make it”. According to Fausti, Ratzinger and Martini “had more votes, Martini a few more” than Ratzinger. There had apparently been a scheme to elect a Curia cardinal. “Once the ploy had been unveiled, Martini went to Ratzinger in the evening and said to him: tomorrow, you agree to become Pope with my votes… He said to him: you accept, you have been in the Curia for 30 years and you are intelligent and honest: if you manage to reform the Curia great, if not, you step down.”" - http://www.lastampa.it/2015/07/18/e...l-conclave-DwndHOcfnKxhBergqAN3WL/pagina.html

"... Pope Francis's predecessor breaks silence to contradict explanation he gave to cardinals when he stepped down ..." - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/pope-benedict-god-resign-mystical-experience​

Carlo Martini, SJ. was also on the ecumenical bible translation committees...

 

Oh great, the Guardian, the NYT, and the Economist - all liberal rags. I am truly not impressed with you quoting them.

 

Nothing Wrong with being a Atheist. God may even require it. Brave enough to think for yourself vs such a weak minded crowd pleaser that takes the word of a clearly failed prophet.

And there is a HELL. Whats the danger if there is no danger?. No Hell, No Danger, what are you whining for? Hell is eternal separation from God.

 

Pitiful [in a deep unrelenting waves of sadness sort of way, a Judas mentality, the ancestral spiritual apostle of Romanism] Jesuit thinking ...

Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, spoke of those "without God" [atheism, Gr. Tr. 'atheoi'] in the world, and he said that they were those "having no hope". It is very sad to have no hope, not even the blessed hope, Jesus Christ.

Scripture speaks of those who reply to God's statement of "I AM", with saying, "No, God ..." I am, thus the "fool", because they rejected God, who is Truth, who is Wisdom, even Jesus Christ. To say, "No" to God, is to say that God is the liar.

God requires repentance, God requires mercy & godly love, God requires obedience, God requires Truth in the inward parts. God does not require atheism, nor Jesuitism. They exist inspite [even in the face of] God's goodness and awesome loving glorious character.

Did God foresee the temporary existence of both? Yes. It's in the Bible.