I'm in the bright blue blouse. James in the blue t-shirt in front of me. Vlad in yellow t-shirt. Patrick in Boy Scout uniform. Elen behind Vlad (brown hair); Sally behind Pat, blonde hair. And of course, the tall guy in white is Pope Francis.
Posted on 10/01/2013 6:06:28 PM PDT by markomalley
I'm in the bright blue blouse. James in the blue t-shirt in front of me. Vlad in yellow t-shirt. Patrick in Boy Scout uniform. Elen behind Vlad (brown hair); Sally behind Pat, blonde hair. And of course, the tall guy in white is Pope Francis.
There’s no explaining this away. The man is a modernist, plain and simple. What did we expect? If you put any credence in St. Malachy’s prophecy, he IS the last pope, after all.
Actually I was reading a Catholic article the other day about where one pope rescinded the orders of another pope. It was in regards to the appointing of female Cardinals in the Church. I don't think there is more evidence of this then the pronouncements of the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent.
I suppose popes don't contradict Catholic dogma because they modify the dogma before they make their pronouncements. And then you have a bunch of Catholics telling us we're crazy. It's like the news media protecting this administration.
I love it. I’d like to get one with Pius XII.
That is simply impossible, as such disagreement only exists among Prots who have no infallible interpreter for their infallible authority, unless RCs who have the likes of Catholics answers and FR RCs to interpret their infallible authority:).
You forgot the "private theologian" clause, but it is impossible for RCs to know with certainty which level of the magisterium every teaching fall under, and even the CCC may contain errors.
Slowly, I get the impression that "cannot err" claims of infallibility are things that only exist retroactively within the Catholic church. I'm hearing that Cardinals can elect the "wrong man", that Cardinals can resist the Holy Spirit, and that Popes can make statements in opposition to doctrine and dogma which have to be corrected or reinterpreted later. Where does infallibility take place, if not "after the fact" with the victors writing the history books?
That reminds me of my dear departed mother-in-law, who had a habit of saying. "That's the best steak I have ever eaten", or "That's the best best orange chicken I've ever had", etc. Whenever she encountered something good, it was the best ever. It was charming, but the same words spoken in a public review by the world's most famous food critic might have had an unintended result.
So it is when the world's most watched religious leader speaks of evil.
That line cracked me up. The moment you say, "I am humble", you are not.
No, that's not true. (Where'd you get that, by the way? I'm always interested.)
But thank ye kindly for giving me yet another opportunity to expound on the authority of popes and the limitations thereof.
A pope cannot teach heresy in a manner intended to be binding on the whole Church. In other words, it will be impossible for a pope to take his own erroneous theological opinion (everybody's got 'em) and make it stick.
One way this limitation once worked out in papal history, is like so:
Check thou it out.
* chuckle *
Yeah.
Do you really not know the difference between an administrative order and dogma?
What you said is like someone saying, "I thought the President couldn't change the Constitution on his own authority, but here he signed an executive order that contradicted a previous President's executive order!"
Since I first started posting on religious threads, before there even was a Religion Forum, I have heard nothing but how "every Prod is his own Pope."
Now with this guy wearing the Prada shoes I'm hearing :
-That his teaching is in error, that he is somehow wrong and FRoman Catholics are the final judge on what is and isn't true Roman Catholicism.
AND
-Constant interpretations of what he really said (which begs the questions whose interpretation of Roman Catholic dogma is valid?)
Who interprets what the Pope says? Who is really in charge if not the Pope?
When the Pope speaks (a) to the whole church; (b) in his supreme apostolic authority; (c) definitively teaching; (c) a doctrine concerning faith and morals. All four conditions must be present. (This was defined by Vatican I. Look it up; the name of the document is Pastor Aeternus.)
An interview given to a secular journalist flunks a, b, and c, hands down, no questions asked.
erratum
(d) a doctrine concerning faith and morals.
Thanks for your (sarcasm for the lighter side) post. For sure, the media is trying to twist whatever Pope Francis says.
That would be cool! The Diocesan Campus Ministry took people’s pictures and posted them on their website so we could copy them.
Thanks! This is only half of us!
That is simply impossible, as such disagreement only exists among Prots who have no infallible interpreter for their infallible authority, unless RCs who have the likes of Catholics answers and FR RCs to interpret their infallible authority:).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.