Is Pope Francis a Liberal Protestant?

As an outsider, I can’t help but wonder whether the pope and the USCCB were particularly provoked by Weinandy’s suggestion that Jesus had allowed this controversy in order “to manifest just how weak is the faith of many within the Church, even among too many of her bishops.” Catholics will have to make up their own minds—but I’ll admit I have questions about the faith of Pope Francis, which seems, if not weak, at least different from that of the Catholic tradition.

Even before the release of Amoris Laetitia in March 2016, Francis had caused many to question his fidelity to that tradition. In 2014, the midterm report of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family recommended that pastors emphasize the “positive aspects” of cohabitation and civil remarriage after divorce. He said that Jesus’s multiplication of bread and fish was really a miracle of sharing, not of multiplying (2013); told a woman in an invalid marriage that she could take Holy Communion (2014); claimed that lost souls do not go to hell (2015); and said that Jesus had begged his parents for forgiveness (2015). In 2016, he said that God had been “unjust with his son,” announced his prayer intention to build a society “that places the human person at the center,” and declared that inequality is “the greatest evil that exists.” In 2017, he joked that “inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors, but on the outside they give the picture of unity.” Jesus Christ, he said, “made himself the devil.” “No war is just,” he pronounced. At the end of history, “everything will be saved. Everything.”

Weinandy and other Catholic critics have pointed to alarming statements and suggestions in Amoris Laetitia itself. The exhortation declares, “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” In December 2016, the Catholic philosophers John Finnis and Germain Grisez argued in their “Misuse of Amoris Laetitia” that though this statement reflects a trend among Catholic thinkers stemming from Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar, it contradicts the gospels’ clear statements and the Catholic tradition’s teaching that there is “unending punishment” in hell. Finnis and Grisez charge that, according to the logic of Amoris Laetitia, some of the faithful are too weak to keep God’s commandments, and can live in grace while committing ongoing and habitual sins “in grave matter.” Like (Episcopalian) Joseph Fletcher, who taught Situation Ethics in the 1960s, the exhortation suggests that there are exceptions to every moral rule and that there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil act.

I take no pleasure in Rome’s travails. For decades, orthodox Anglicans and other Protestants seeking to resist the apostasies of liberal Christianity have looked to Rome for moral and theological support. Most of us recognized that we were really fighting the sexual revolution, which had coopted and corrupted the Episcopal Church and its parent across the pond. First it was the sanctity of life and euthanasia. Then it was homosexual practice. Now it is gay marriage and transgender ideology. During the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we non-Catholics arguing moral theology could point to learned and compelling arguments coming out of Rome and say, in effect, “The oldest and largest part of the Body of Christ agrees with us, and it does so with remarkable sophistication.”

Those of us who continue to fight for orthodoxy, in dogmatic as well as moral theology, miss those days when there was a clear beacon shining from across the Tiber. For now, it seems, Rome itself has been infiltrated by the sexual revolution. The center is not holding.

Though we are dismayed, we must not despair. For the brave and principled stand made by Tom Weinandy reminds us that God raises up prophetic lights when dark days come to his Church.

Gerald McDermott holds the Anglican Chair of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School.

Please separate the individual lives from dogma and Catholic theology. If you are unable to make this simple distinction there can be no dialogue.

Yes, before the Bible, there was the Catholic Church. This Bible you and your Billy Grahams, and Joel Osteens and Benny Hinns keep referring did not fall from the skies and self assemble itself to be picked apart by at the wicked heresy of Luther that dissolved into a 30,00 different sects

Early in the history of the Church, the belief in the Eucharist which is central only to Catholic teaching was propounded by St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John and St Irenaeus. Apparently some of the folks here keep quoting scripture that are relied upon by the snake handlers in Appalachia.

The seven great letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, written around the year AD 106 while on his way to Rome to be thrown to the beasts, take for granted the existence of local hierarchical churches, ruled by bishops who are assisted by priests and deacons. Ignatius, a living disciple of John the Apostle, writes that “Jesus Christ...is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ. Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop.”

St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies. Yet he never could have imagined the Protestant heresies that would follow centuries later. But here’s what he wrote barely a century after the death of Christ.

“[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

So it’s no surprise if the leading Protestant and Episcopalian theologians and scholars after a life-time of study, teaching and contemplation have converted to Catholicism. Sadly, the rubes still remaining in the empty pews of these Protestant denominations have been left behind to the mercy of semi-illerate corner street churches, not infrequently staffed by ordained married lesbian and homosexual pastors

This is the height of illogical reasoning. Of course, the Holy Spirit does not choose the successor to St. Peter otherwise there would be no freedom of will. We all pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance just as we do in our daily prayers and invocations. But in the end we are free to disobey the will of the Holy Spirit.

What illogical reasoning? Since you do not even quote what point you are responding to, I can only assume from your reply you think I argued that the Holy Spirit must choose the successor to St. Peter for Rome to submit to him, which I actually argued against in principle.

Thus once again your attempted correction is erroneous from the start.

Moreover,I defined in what manner Holy Spirit would be the one choosing a successor "so that the man they choose is His choice as in selecting Saul and David," and which is no in conflict with free will as per your idea of this choosing, but it means God makes the choice so manifest that it would be a formal act of disobedience to choose otherwise.

But when a successor to St Peter acts ex cathedra in union with all the Bishops in proclaiming dogma this is where infallibility attaches.

If Rome does say so herself, but which mere assertion was just what I took time to reprove. Is comprehension the problem (I am rather slow myself)?

Before the Bible there was the Church. Hence when the Church formally announced the Books in the Bible as the true Word of God somewhere around AD 380 in the Council of Rome, this act became infallible, and hence the authenticity of the written Word of God.

Which assertion (which is all you have) first of all is contrary to your own teachers and history:

► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)

► "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;

► “Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.

And indeed, despite statements by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence, as these were not infallible, thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent .

Secondly, before the church there was Scripture, a substantive body of wholly inspired writings, and thus the Lord and His apostles, as itinerant preachers, established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Furthermore, this authoritative body of writings were not established by any infallible magisterium, as even common souls could correctly ascertain both men and writings of men as being so (thus they held John the Baptist to be "a prophet indeed:" (Mk. 11:32) Which is actually how the NT church began, contrary to your erroneous RC model.

The Church alone may provide authoritative and authentic interpretation of scripture.

Nonsense. To be consistent with your logic, since those who sat in the seat of Moses were the historical authoritative magisterial stewards of Scripture then they alone could provide authoritative and authentic interpretation of scripture, versus some non-ordained and rejected (by them) itinerant preachers who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). Even the veracity of the apostles was subject to testing by Scripture, versus them being the supreme standard on Truth. For as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

Thus what you and many cults have have done is dethrone the Scriptures as supreme and substituted your church, as supporting the Truth upon which the NT church she was established made her supreme infallible authority on Truth. A court can actually be the supreme judicial authority, as was the "supreme court" of the OT, but which does not require or equate to ensured infallibility, much less being wholly inspired of God, which the "infallible": words of popes are not, and thus cannot be equal to Scripture, by which all is judged.

Otherwise we allow the Billy Grahams, Joel Osteens, Rev. Al Sharptons; Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, the Benny Hinns and every other Dick, Tom and Harry and half-witted foursquare church pastors to tell us what scripture instructs.

Your variegated mixture is absurd, as is your reasoning. In Scripture ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was never seen or needed in order to have authority, and dissent from the OT magisterium was a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) but that did not mean that all those who sat in their seat would always judge correctly, Nor do such promises as to guide His body into all Truth (which did not start with the church) promise or require ensured infallibility.

Moreover, unless you make the State the arm of the church in exterminating the heretics as medieval Catholicism required of RC rulers in their lands, then you are not going to silence every Joel Osteen, Rev. Al Sharpton; Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or Steelfish from attempting tell us what scripture instructs. And which use of the sword of men to silence merely theological opponents was not Scriptural, which just adds to the list of Rome's errors. But perhaps that use is what you advocate.

However, the absence of an infallible magisterium simply does not mean that every Joel Osteen, Rev. Al Sharpton; Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or Steelfish must be allowed to go on unopposed, and in fact your magisterium is quote ineffective in combating such (a pope even affirming Billy Graham), but it has been fundamental evangelicalism which most powerfully condemned such.

Go check out the large number of Protestant denominations that says scripture allows for married gay and lesbian pastors. Which is actually an argument against you and for Bible Christians, since those liberal denominations are typically the closest to Catholicism, while those who most strongly hold to the authority of Scripture testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs and more values, in contrast to your brethren overall, those whom Rome treats as members in life and in death.

Thus your every point is fallacious, while as recent threads attest, your church is a mixture of variant interpretations on who valid popes and what teachings are so, and their meaning. Come to think of it, perhaps you would answer the avoided question, as to whom was the last valid pope?

Based on the variety of opinion about Catholicism we see just here on FR, there are 1.2 billion flavors of Catholic belief. After all, we keep being told that whatever is not infallibly defined is up for grabs about how binding it is on the faithful and whether they have to accept and believe it or not.

See exasperated response by poster on Catholic forums discussing this:

rr1213 Oct '06

itsjustdave1988: It is not official Catholic teaching that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is inerrant or an exercise of infallible teaching authority. However…

Direct and positive infallibility pertain to teachings which are “of faith” (de fide) and as such without error and immutable. But there’s another sense of infallibility, called indirect and negative infallibility. This sense does not connote immutability, but pertains to whether the object is harmful or dangerous to the faithful. If I erroneously assert 2+3=7, I’ve made an error, but I have not asserted something that is necessarily harmful to my faith.

Infallibility in the indirect and negative sense pertains to the protection of God given to approved ecclesiastical discipline. It is affirmed by Pius VI condemnation of the Jansenist proposition that approved ecclesiastical discipline can be harmful or dangerous to the faithful (cf. Pius VI, *Auctorem Fidei, *78).

Thus, according to P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

See more on disciplinary infallibility, here.

So, it appears that although general disciplinary norms may not be “the best,” given the contemporary situation, and therefore not immutable, they are always protected by God such that they can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful*. *

From this, it is my opinion that this Divine protection necessarily includes Catholic doctrine. That is, since canon law is infallible in the indirect and negative sense, and since canon law demands religious assent to the doctrines of the Roman Pontiff and the college of bishops in union with him, then it follows that religious assent to this doctrine can not be harmful or dangerous to the faithful, even if such doctrines are not proclaimed solemnly, definitively as de fide.

Consequently, the doctrines described within the Catechism of the Catholic Church as universally taught by the magisterium can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful, and as such, are infallible in the indirect and negative sense.

rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/30

The response to which is just obey everything:

Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis.

Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31

Got it?

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

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.