Posted on 11/21/2015 11:16:03 AM PST by marshmallow
Pope Francis on Friday described some Catholic priests as so scary and neurotic he keeps well away from them.
In comments that had his audience chuckling at a conference on training for the priesthood, the 78-year-old pontiff revealed he is instinctively suspicious of overly pious candidates.
"I will tell you sincerely, I'm scared of rigid priests," he said. "I keep away from them. They bite!"
Francis resorted to humor to make a serious point that some people who are drawn to a clerical career are fundamentally unstable - and that inevitably creates problems for the church if they are not weeded out.
"If you are sick, if you are neurotic, go and see a doctor, spiritual or physical," he added. "The doctor will give you pills. But, please, don't let the faithful pay for neurotic priests."
As well as assessing the spiritual state of candidates, seminaries should also seek to judge their physical and psychological condition, Francis argued.
"There are often young men who are psychologically unstable without knowing it and who look for strong structures to support them. For some it is the police or the army but for others it is the clergy," the pope added, warning that such disorders inevitably resurface at a later date.
(Excerpt) Read more at globalpost.com ...
Skipped a couple of important words
Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of your dearly beloved son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for my sins and the sins of the whole world.
I am not sure that is so. Being bishop, like being priest, inscribes an indelible mark on the soul, and what person or organization can you name which can depose the Bishop of Rome?
The pope would remain a bishop, but if a heretic, would nonetheless lose communion with the Catholic Church and cease to be pope.
But only the College of Cardinals could pronounce him formally a heretic, or a successor pope.
At best, we laymen can note that a pope seems to be in heresy, but we have no authority to actively act on that conclusion.
What about sensus fidei? At some point, that would kick into gear so to speak.
I understand that the way out of this Catch-22 only exists when there are more than one claimants to the papacy: therefore the Council could "depose" the anti-pope (the false pretender), but only with the assent of the true pope.
Or, both the anti-pope and the true pope could resign, and then the Council would be free to have a conclave to elect a new pope. Isn't this what happened at the end of the Great Western Schism (15th century)?
Catholic Encyclopedia, last two paragraphs (LINK)
I admit this isn't all quite clear, but this is my impression. Any corrections welcome.
My 93yo Catholic MIL swears to that. She is not worried in the least about him.
I offer no correction, only my own imperfect understanding. What the College of Cardinals is empowered by the Church to make, it can unmake.
What has happened,o course, is the choosing of anti-popes. A great scandal, but it could happen again.
Wait until he turns 80, most likely he will step down.
You can be devout and be calm about it.
True that, it did happen in the past. But as far as I know, there was nothing in the Francis Conclave that would show it to have been an unlawful Conclave. There was evidently some “politicking,” but that’s far from unprecedented, nor is it illicit.
islamists.
The manifest heretic pope automatically ceases to be pope, Catholic and member of the Church. Subsequently the Church declares it.
OK, got that part. But who -— what person or body -— in the Church can declare it?
The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?†It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church.
It may be a quibble, but I think it would more likely be the College of Cardinals in which the power to judge a pope a heretic would lie. Here’s why: only a Conclave of the Cardinals is authorized to act without a pope’s confirmation, and one is automatically authorized when there isn’t currently a pope.. The bishops may not act as a group without the confirmation of the pope.
I pray for the Pope every day. Several times a day. I'm not saying that to give the impression that I'm a great pray-er, but just because it's the only thing I can do.
And no, that's not quite right either. Just live a fully Catholic life, following the Our Lady of the Great Sign, fighting Satan, "keeping God's commandments and bearing witness to Jesus" (Rev. 12:17)
I’m not sure Bergoglio is any longer the pope, in fact. Perhaps it is more helpful to pray for the Church, not that I’m one to instruct anyone how to pray.
Certainly that makes sense under normal conditions, but when there is no pope due to heresy (rather than no pope due to the death of a pope), we’re not talking normal conditions anymore. The quote I gave was from a Cardinal at the Vatican I Council and he said “Council”, not “Conclave”.
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.