Aha! There I agree with you. If a Pope ever says anything against Scripture or Tradition ex-cathedra and tries to bind the faithful to it he would not be Pope. This is the protection we have from the Holy Spirit. He would either be an antipope, imposter, etc. However if he just says something such as "There is no Hell" over and over in public then we are not to follow him in that principle. Theologians agree that we have had Pope's who have said theologically incorrect things. They have never tried though to bind the faithful to their incorrect ideas. That is where the Papal infallibility comes in.
I have to start by saying that I haven't read the whole thread, only browsed over it, just enough to catch the tone of some posts. Of course the questions in the poll at the beginning are quite an introduction that give us a preview of what comes afterwards. It blows my mind that people have such a strong sense of knowing better than the Pope what he should be doing and how. I would ask you, does this come from the Holy Spirit?? I truly doubt it. Bringing forth all the intellectual reflection of the ages won't change what is behind this attitude: an assault against the Rock established by Christ Himself in Peter, today Pope Francis. I would challenge you to show where and when has Pope Francis gone against the Tradition of the Apostles and the Popes before him. He hasn't. The Holy Spirit has chosen Pope Francis for our times -the End Times- and is guiding him in a way that is not immediately apparent for many of us. Pope Francis has not stopped asking Catholics, Non Catholics, heretics, communists, politicians, women, children, ... EVERYONE to PRAY FOR HIM AND HIS MINISTRY "because he needs it badly" as he says. Those who don't like his leadership, how and how much are you PRAYING FOR THE POPE EVERYDAY? Do you invest as much time in praying for the Pope as you do in worrying and airing your negative opinions about him and your projections and fancies of what he might or might not do in the future? You and me and all of us will have to give an account to God of our prayer for the Pope -VERY SOON- I have prayed much about my own misunderstanding of what the Pope is doing inspired by the Holy Spirit, and this is what I've come up with: Pope Francis is catching fish in a huge fishing trip. He is not fishing in ordinary near-shore waters. He has gone into the deep with special equipment, and is getting LOTS and LOTS of fish that were never spotted by other fishermen. You can read comments in the most varied places in the Web were agnostics, people without a faith, lapses Catholics, etc. etc. are now looking at the Church, and even -many- stepping into our churches and the sacraments. THIS is the time of MERCY, and is the last chance for MILLIONS. The Spirit has an eye on those millions upon millions of practically lost children of God that DO NOT HEAR the traditional language of the Church. Now they are hearing it thanks to Francis. And the Spirit is working in their hearts -and will continue working. They're giving attention to something different, and realizing that there MIGHT be something else after all. Also, the Pope is engaging the culture that believes to have grown beyond God and the need for religion in their own field. As an example: the "green" people, the "ecological" people can no longer defend that abortion or euthanasia is green and ecological. They have got a response from the Church -where before seemed to have no say, maybe just because of language- and if abortion and euthanasia where for them before only "imposed religious rules" now they have to swallow that the clever "eco-green-feminist" people do't hold the exclusive for progress that they pretend. There are many thousands of cardinals, bishops, priests, theologians, and lay people who can explain and clarify what is not specifically repeated by Pope Francis (neither contradicted) because it is and has been in the Tradition of the Church for 2000 years and we know it. Why was it news that the Pope said last week that divorced and remarried Catholics are not excommunicated? Because it is not in people's radar. And yet is an ancient truth in the Church. I've read at least one wonderful commentary from a bishop explaining that they are not excommunicated, but they are part of the Church in the same way as any of us when we commit a mortal sin -are not excommunicated but we are shielding ourselves from the flow of the life of the Church in us. The rest of the pastors in the Church need to follow suit and support the Pope by doing their part -which is this kind of complementary connection of teachings. Regrettably it's more visible that many Pastor remain silent where they should also be speaking, and others are jumping aboard of Pope Francis train with a very wicked intention to distort his teaching in their own benefit. Is the Pope to blame for what the devil is doing through other Pastors? NO. We have to PRAY -for the Pope and for ALL Pastors. The Pope's disconcerting style -for many of us- is also helping to separate the wheat from the weeds among many of us, the Catholics in the pews. How many of us are externally "perfect" followers of Jesus, and yet, in our heart, we "know better" than the Pope and the Spirit guiding him? Where is our humility? Our obedience? Our Trust in Jesus Word? Is it Catholic and is it what we learn in the Gospel that we complain and fantasize about the future failings of our Pope?? What kind of entertainment are we engaging in? Maybe there is a massive sifting going on in preparation for the Warning -already around the corner- For one, the Spirit is calling the attention of millions of good people who have given up on God and religion. On the other hand the Spirit is allowing to show what is in the heart of many -maybe millions also- who profess themselves the true followers of Christ, but rather they follow a doctrine and not the Living Christ, the Way, who is alive and well today in the Church and in the Pope. There is no intention of personal offense with this post. But if people dare to criticize the Pope so blatantly, they have to understand that they need to take a little bit of their own medicine. And also I invite you to realize that with your lack of mercy towards your and our Pope, you are offending many Catholics -not to say Christ Himself.
Just to set the record straight, I was not criticizing Pope Francis or any other Pope. My sole intention was to let people know that we do not need to hang on and agree with every word any Pope or Prelate utters as if it is gospel. We are allowed to critique their public proclamations if they go against Catholic Scripture and Tradition. We are not allowed to judge their inner motivations unless they declare them in a statement. That was my point, whole and entire. This is what the Church teaches, it is not my opinion. That being said, we should also not needlessly point out faults of the Pope or others excepting where it might hinder the salvation of others. Sadly we are in a time when the clergy are being diabolically deceived and bringing many of the faithful to Hell with them.
Dittos. And we won't know who is truly spouting nonsense till after the Synod. Though some will try to move the goalposts then and say, "if the pope says the divorced and remarried can be readmitted to the Sacraments without an annulment, and we need homosexual civil unions, that's good enough for me, and those who disagree are not Catholic." Mark my words.
We must at this moment concern ourselves with what we can do and that is to pray for our Holy Father that he speaks and defends the Church, the bride of Christ, and her unchanging teachings in the area of faith and morals. This is our part.
This sort of "logic" doesn't seem to gel with me. The Pope is either accepted as Pope here and now on observed historical/empirical grounds (ie he was validly elected) or he isn't. Its a sort of "rationalism" to say yes he's Pope but conditionally...so long as he doesn't do anything in the future that we personally believe is incompatible with being the Pope. That's a bit like prophets who revise their failed prophecy on the basis of hidden provisos they didn't tell us the first time. The elephant in the room I think is whether our understanding of the principles embedded in Scripture and "Tradition" are well understood - esp when new situations are recognised today that the principles would have us deal with in a way different from their application in Biblical times. Catholic principles are eternal but application over time can evolve, change and even reverse. Some Catholics think they have such a sure and accurate understanding of Scripture/Tradition that they can detect an anti-Christ faster than you can say snap-dragon. But is an anti-Christ going to force Catholics to deny the existence of articles in the Creed? Hardly. Madness is easily detected. Misapplication of Catholic principle to changing times is a much more difficult beast to recognise and take down I think. Many thought that the new Catholic Marriage Tribunal practice justified the unjustifiable - divorce/adultery. Yet most of us believe the traditional teaching still stands regardless. Yet, it could still be very reasonably argued that Marriage Tribunals do in fact deny the principle of the indissolubility of Catholic marriage. Its not an unreasonable position if you look at Scripture and past tradition. So how do we know which view is "correct". It cannot be determined by "reason", by appeal to Scripture or by appeal to "Tradition" for it seems there has been no precedent on this matter. In the end, it seems to me, we accept Marriage Tribunals are not legitimating divorce only because the Papacy teaches this. To whom or what else can we go to decide such ambiguous matters anyway? And that is all God expects of me, right or wrong though the matter may be in God's eyes (but how would I ever know that!). This view makes Catholic living (at least wrt teachings) stress free for me. I really do find it quite hard to understand why not everyone is so relaxed in these things here, esp over the Synod.
I am tired of repeating myself. This is not my opinion. Please go back and read my earlier post where there are quotes to this effect from saints/Popes etc.
OK. Though I am not aware of a mainstream Catholic tradition (or any clear opinion you have quoted here) that a Pope who attempts to bind the faithful to heresy would not in fact ever have been a valid Pope?
It is a "mainstream Catholic" opinion. Just not modernist if that's what you mean. Also, it is true a Pope who tries to bind the faithful to heresy may not be a valid Pope, but if you go back through Catholic history, anti-popes are not always clear until later. Also, it could be done through subterfuge and he may not attempt to bind the faithful ex-cathedra, he may just say they should do it. People today are pretty easily fooled. Most people think we are to believe whatever the Pope says. The Holy Spirit only protects the faithful from a Pope making an ex-cathedra statement filled with error. Again I have quote "clear opinions" in my link, go back through the thread and read it if you wish.
I have no doubt that St. Paul was called by the Holy Spirit to correct St. Peter. My worry is that we will be tempted to give ourselves the mission of correcting Peter, in opposition to the Will of God. Perhaps if you really want that job, you should become a Saint, then maybe God will give it to you. But most likely, if you become a Saint, you wouldn't want the job!
A very thoughtful interview with Cardinal Sconborn where he indicates confidence that there will be no change in Church doctrine out of the Synod. His comments on the continuity between Benedict and Francis are also very important. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...od-i-am-confident-there-will-be-no-change-in/
Yet the lesson remains . Peter himself was in error. To think any future Pope could not be makes no sense.
Peter was not in error in terms of his teaching that Gentiles were also heirs to the salvation of Christ. It was in fact, Peter who first voiced their salvation after his dream and was inspired by the Holy Spirit to announce salvation in Christ to the Gentiles. At the Council of Jerusalem, after the "debate" Peter stood up and pronounced that the Church would welcome the Gentiles and they "all fell silent". Thus, at best Paul's rebuke was a matter of pastoral style, but not a rebuke to Peter's primacy. Quite frankly, the Protestants use this very verse to argue against the papacy. Please read this fantastic treatise by Church Father, St. Jerome and it clearly explains this so called "rebuke". Let's please be very careful here as this is not about Francis, but the about the primacy of "Peter" http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html
I don't think anyone has argued against the primacy of Peter. Simply that Popes can make gaffs and mistakes and that we should not treat every word they utter as gospel. We are obliged to critique if their statements are confusing or in error.
I was specifically speaking to the comment above about Paul's rebuke of Peter to correct his error. This scripture is often used by Protestants to refute the office of the Supreme Pontiff. And to me when we say Peter made an "error" it references more than just a "gaffe" - to me it goes to magisterial teaching. If I've interpreted the comment incorrectly then my apologies, but I do think in terms of context of this thread that was where the comment was directed.
Yes I read your thread Praetorian. I cannot find anything - that is why I am asking you to quote one to back up your less travelled view here.
I don't know what protestants do, but I know what we are taught by the Church, which is what I have stated. I would not list this as a gaffe by Peter, but a mistake which he was corrected on. Pope Francis thanked a journalist who corrected him last year (I forget the issue, but I am sure you remember it). I have written a large number of the responses on this thread and I want to make sure they are understood correctly. The correct Catholic teaching, which I am sure we all agree is that The Pope (any Pope) is the spiritual inheritor of St. Peter. He is guarded from error in matters where he would bind the faithful (ex-cathedra). He is not protected however from saying things that are theologically incorrect, etc. We have had many Popes who have held erroneous beliefs through the history of the Church who have been corrected by theologians. Heck there have been some really, really bad ones. Papal infallibility is very, very limited. If a Pope or any other Prelate says something that might lead the faithful astray we have a right and an obligation as good Catholics to be on guard against it and correct them. To be clear I have not picked one thing this present Pope has said or done as an example. I am only talking about all Popes in general.
Blue Horizon. I mean no disrespect, but I have been reading your posts since long before I joined the forum and have seen you banned and brought back, several times I believe. You go round and round with people and it never goes anywhere and seems to only cause consternation. I don't mind answering others' questions on what I have posted but I have no desire to get into one of your circular arguments. I really don't mean to be disrespectful. If you honestly don't see my point I am sorry, but I won't be getting on the carousel.
Praetorian I don't mean any disrespect either. If people come out with unusual statements that purport to be mainstream Catholic I like to understand if there is actually any basis in Catholic tradition for those statements. I am an avid student of Catholic doctrinal history and practise and thought I may have missed something. If that scholarly curiosity is what you call "consternation" I am OK with that though you make it sound a negative thing. I looked through your quotes and seemed to find nothing specific there that seemed to confirm your assertion...hence I asked you to elucidate. If you cannot demonstrate good historical consensus and sources its a mainstream Catholic view that is fine. You are entitled to a personal angle on ambiguous Catholic matters like everybody else .
What I wrote was not my opinion and nothing I said was "un-Catholic" as you seem to be saying. I have been very clear. If my answers were not sufficient and you have an unquenchable thirst know the answer it is easily researched.
