Skip to comments.
Pope Francis: "It gives me pleasure to have debates with conservative bishops"
summorum pontificum blog ^
| 10/7/14
| Brian Kopp
Posted on 10/07/2014 8:34:19 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
By Brian Kopp
This recent article in The Tablet pretty much confirms, if there were still any doubt, that Pope Francis does not consider himself a "conservative" within the Church. See area in bold:
Pope Francis has stated that the Church “must not withdraw into dogma” and should recognise that “the world has changed”.
As the bishops prepared to begin discussions on issues relating to with the family, Francis indicated that he wanted clergy to be less judgmental and more understanding of those living outside Catholic norms.
He told an Argentinian newspaper: “The world has changed and the Church can not withdraw into supposed interpretations of dogma. We have to approach these social difficulties, both new and old, by extending a hand to give comfort, not by stigmatising and criticising people.”
His comments were published yesterday, the same day he celebrated a Mass to open the two-week Synod of Bishops which has as its theme “pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelisation”.
Francis told La Nacion that while there had been “a lot of emphasis” in the run-up to the Synod on the issue of the ban on Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, other concerns deserved attention as well, such as young people viewing cohabitation as preferable to marriage.
He said: “It is an issue that undoubtedly will be debated. But, for me, an equally important problem is the new habits of young people. Young people are not getting married. It is the culture of the time.”
He added: “What should the Church do? Expel them from their breast? Or approach them and try to bring them close and teach them the word of God? I am in favour of the latter position.”
Despite the conflicting opinions, bishops should speak freely at the synod he said, he said.
Francis said at the Synod of Bishops that took place in 2001 there was a cardinal who told them what you could say and what you couldn’t. He added: “That won’t happen this time.”
It was for that reason that he has given bishops the power to elect the presidents of their own conferences, he said.
Francis claimed he had no objection the publication of a book by five cardinals, including Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Apostolic Signatura, setting out their position against revising the prohibition on divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Communion.
He said: “Everyone has something to contribute. It gives me pleasure to have debates with conservative bishops when the arguments are intellectually well-formed.”
But he warned Catholics not to count on changes being announced at the end of this month’s meetings, which will be followed by a second synod next October. He said: “Don't expect a decision next week … This is only the initial push.”
One gets the real impression that some Synod members are asking us, in the name of
mercy and compassion, to give a pass to this modern mass apostasy on matters of sexuality and marriage.
TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-143 next last
To: ealgeone
Schisms and whole new churches are not merely “discussions.”
Actually, both Catholics and Protestants have gone seriously astray regarding Scripture—specifically in regard to the OLD Testament.
How many times has it been said that “Jesus didn’t say anything about abortion” or “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality”?
Those topics are not mentioned in the Gospels precisely because they were absolutely settled issues for all Jews in Jesus’ time and for all Christians for centuries after. The main outline of Christian morality was Jewish morality. It still is.
This is what Catholics are referring to when they speak of “Sacred Tradition.” Sacred Tradition is not a body of secret teaching whispered by the Apostles and not written down in the New Testament. “Sacred Tradition” is primarily the Christian understanding of the Old Testament, the Jewish Faith. Most of it was absolutely settled, absolutely non-controversial, and therefore not part of Jesus’ preaching and not discussed in the New Testament. It is only in that sense that “Sacred Tradition” is “not in Scripture.”
In fact, it IS in Scripture, in the sense that Christians, from the very beginning (because all Christians were and are either Jews or believers that the Jewish faith is all true) had a definite, highly-developed body of teaching about the meaning of the history of Israel, from Adam to Jesus.
This is why “Jesus never mentioned” this or that is utterly beside the point. The Old Testament is part of revelation, and “Sacred Tradition” is primarily what Christians have understood the Old Testament to mean.
The feebleness of the modern Christian defense of natural marriage is due to the near-universal loss of the Old Testament as a source of Christians’ self-understanding.
And it’s not their fault. Christians began losing their grip on this as early as the 14th Century—or, some say, earlier.
To: piusv
Absolutely nothing? You mean there isn’t one sedevacantist who has taken that position because scandalized by a Pope’s imprudence, carelessness, personal corruption? Not even one?
To: piusv
BTW: I repeat, I WOULD be interested in any evidence that the conclave of 2013 was for any reason invalid. I haven’t seen anything along those lines.
To: RFEngineer
“If you used 4 words, you could say “The Pope is infallible””
Yes, but as we already saw, you didn’t get that right so 33 words were necessary.
“If you say he’s sometimes infallible and sometimes not infallible, that would take many more words than 4.”
Yes, it took 33. Are paying attention?
“So 33 is more than 4 isn’t it?”
It sure is. Glad you noticed. But since you didn’t get the 4 words, it took 33.
To: Arthur McGowan
So you are saying tradition is not based on the early church fathers, which about 90% of the catholics on this blog claim that is tradition, and hence justification for Mary, indulgences, etc?
To: Arthur McGowan
Oh so now it is only one?
You really should read up on sedevacantism before you post false notions.
When a sedevacantist believes the seat is vacant he/she does not base it on a particular papal claimant’s “personal imperfections”. You may think that is what he/she believes because you don’t agree with them, but that is not what they believe.
Again, show me a link on any sedevacantist site that even suggests “papal personal imperfections” is its basis.
126
posted on
10/08/2014 3:48:22 PM PDT
by
piusv
To: vladimir998
I’m sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable. It’s either simple or it’s not. As you explained, sometimes infallibility comes into play - like when the Pope is talking about some, but not all religious matters in some but not all venues, but other times, presumably, for example when he’s at a local establishment shooting the bull with the boys, he’s not infallible.
I think that’s overly complicated for someone who has regular bouts of infallibility, hence the confusion over the matter.
I guess the real answer is “you know it when you see it” with respect to papal infallibility.
To: ealgeone
What I was calling “Sacred Tradition” is of course transmitted to us through the early Fathers. The subject matter was primarily the spiritual meaning of the Old Testament.
The Church’s dogmas about Mary are rooted in both the Old and the New Testaments.
If Mary was not assumed, body and soul, into heaven, why is there no record of a single, solitary relic of her body? Not even a single, solitary false claim of such a relic? Christians were already treasuring relics of other holy people at that time—even of John the Baptist.
To: Arthur McGowan
That’s a lot of conjecture regarding Mary....a lot. So your assumption is if we don’t have a body for someone they were taken up into Heaven?
To: ealgeone
No, not just anybody. Obviously, there have been billions of people who have died, whose bodies we don’t have.
But Mary is a person whose body would have been instantly revered, treasured, and kept, judging by the behavior of the early Christians. Even the Jews of that time, who kept John the Baptist’s body.
Note, there has never even been a CLAIMED relic.
The significance of that is that nobody—not even a fraud—ever thought he would be believed if he CLAIMED to have a relic of Mary. That testifies to the fact that it was universally believed from the earliest days, by all Christians, that nobody COULD have a relic of Mary’s body.
To: RFEngineer
Is it your position that if a sentence describing a theological matter is longer than 33 words, it’s over-complicated?
That seems like anti-intellectualism of a very high order.
To: RFEngineer
“I’m sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable.”
You didn’t.
“It’s either simple or it’s not.”
It isn’t.
“As you explained, sometimes infallibility comes into play - like when the Pope is talking about some, but not all religious matters in some but not all venues, but other times, presumably, for example when he’s at a local establishment shooting the bull with the boys, he’s not infallible.”
I said it in 33 words. You just made the clear rather muddy. I think the problem is not infallibility or anything I posted.
“I think that’s overly complicated for someone who has regular bouts of infallibility, hence the confusion over the matter.”
I am not in the slightest bit confused. Nor is what I posted in the slightest bit confused. Thus, the confusion is all yours.
“I guess the real answer is “you know it when you see it” with respect to papal infallibility.”
Again, 33 words. That’s what you know.
To: Arthur McGowan
But Mary is a person whose body would have been instantly revered, treasured, and kept, judging by the behavior of the early Christians. Even the Jews of that time, who kept John the Baptist’s body. Again, you're making a mighty big assumption there. And it only took to 1950 to make it "official". If it was that obvious it would have been a universal understanding from the get go. But it wasn't universally agreed upon by the ECFs.
Pope Pius XII's previous encyclical Deiparae Virginis Mariae (May 1, 1946) to all Catholic bishops stated that for a long time past, numerous petitions had been received from cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, priests, religious of both sexes, associations, universities and innumerable private persons, all begging that the bodily Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin should be defined and proclaimed as a dogma of faith.[citation needed] This was also fervently requested by almost two hundred fathers in the Vatican Council (1869–1870).
Following the example of Pope Pius IX, who canvassed Catholic bishops before proclaiming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Pius XII asked all bishops for their opinion. source wikipedia
So the pope conducts an opinion poll to see if this will pass??
"Finally it is our hope that belief in Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven will make our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more effective."
Are the Words of Christ and the Bible not sufficient proof regarding our resurrection?
This is my problem with catholicism and Mary....you build so much hope in Mary that she's almost been elevated to a co-redemtrix...which I believe will be the next big thing in the catholic church. There just isn't enough support for it....yet. But it's coming.
To: Arthur McGowan
“Is it your position that if a sentence describing a theological matter is longer than 33 words, it’s over-complicated?”
No. My position is that papal infallibility ought to be able to expressed simply and directly. That it cannot be expressed simply - indeed it needs many qualifiers and hedges - means it is more likely to be a construct of man than of God.
“That seems like anti-intellectualism of a very high order.”
Don’t bug me about it, bug the guy who counts his words.
To: vladimir998
“You just made the clear rather muddy”
I did no such thing. You explained the many ways that the pope is fallible and the conditions upon which he is infallible.
Clear as mud.
If it came from God it would not be so complex.
To: RFEngineer
“I did no such thing.”
Yes, you did. You did it here again:
“You explained the many ways that the pope is fallible and the conditions upon which he is infallible.”
No. I explained how he is infallible. That is one situation. ONE. He is fallible in all the same ways we are.
“Clear as mud.”
Nope. Very clear. You seem to be the only one having a problem here.
“If it came from God it would not be so complex.”
Clearly you have never read Leviticus nor studied the Temple ceremonies.
To: vladimir998
Let’s expedite this discussion with you, as always happens, to the level of playground debate:
In order:
No I didn’t, Yes you did, no it isn’t
To: RFEngineer
“Let’s expedite this discussion with you, as always happens, to the level of playground debate:”
Just remember that you’re posting like this apparently because of 33 words.
To: vladimir998
“Just remember that you’re posting like this apparently because of 33 words.”
Why would you choose to be so deceptive?
To: RFEngineer
“Why would you choose to be so deceptive?”
I neither chose to be deceptive nor am I deceptive. Why would you choose to falsely accuse someone of being deceptive?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-143 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson