Posted on 10/24/2020 5:50:05 PM PDT by NRx
Well, that’s a rhetorical question that bites the dust.
Like Rick and Ilsa in Casablanca who will “forever will have Paris”, bears will continue to do what they do in the woods but I’m not so sure you can say the same thing about the pope.
I’m bewildered at the dizzying pace in which Pope Francis is giving away the store. And make no mistake, the recognition of civil unions for homosexuals is so “yesterday” that it really doesn’t make sense to be talking about it at this juncture. Except on this level: eventually, the Catholic Church will go full ‘Piskie and find a sacramental way to sanctify sodomy. It has to; the State will make sure that it does.
As far as the other pesky things the Catholic Church teaches, they will be given a pass. The State doesn’t care if it believes in the efficacy of the other sacraments. Those are internal things. Sodomy and abortion are the only rituals that matter to the new secular overlords.
My first instinct is to address my traditional Catholic brethren, for whom I have great sympathy: What now, Tradcats? Do you still hold to the doctrine of Sede Vacantism, the idea that Francis is not a validly elected Pope? Or, if he a legitimate successor to St Peter, where the magisterium resides in his office?
I realize that the more realistic among them will always looks to the Roman Curia to serve as a backstop to any possible papal excesses. Where is the Curia now? Or has the rot, the “filth” which Pope Benedict XVI warned us about, completely taken over them?
I could go on with this line of questioning but that would be churlish. We Orthodox have our own problems with the episcopate so I won’t be the pot calling the kettle black. As a fellow Christian, I truly feel your pain. So instead, I will turn my gaze to my own backyard.
Patriarch Bartholomew has presumably been watching this spectacle, as he is again, joined at the hip with Pope Francis. Several years ago, while in Estonia, he gave a sermon in which he came down hard against same-sex marriage. Now, it is looking more like it was an Obamaesque-type ruse; a way to buy some time until the culture changed.
And boy has the culture changed! Bartholomew has arrogated a papal ideology to himself, crafted by his protege, an archimandrite by the name of Elpidophoros Lambrianides. He later elevated this priest to archiepiscopal status here in America. Clearly, this new archbishop imbibes the spirit of the age in every way possible. It would not strain the eyes of even the most dim-witted to see where the more progressive elements of the Orthodox Church are leaning.
We can lament the self-inflicted wounds that Catholicism has inflicted upon itself, but alas, there’s nothing more we can do. Hopefully, it’s not too late.
I think the phrasing of the title should have been: “Is this Pope (Francis) Catholic?”
Not even slightly. The question is, what are we Catholics to do about him?
Is Jorge Bergoglio a legitimate, valid pope?
That is a good question.
I think that the word is apostate.
Not this pope
Oh great. Hadn’t thought of that.
Lol, that’s the very question that crossed my mind today - and how did he get into office ?
I’m old enough to remember when “Is the Pope Catholic?” was a joke, and not a serious question.
A good start would be to recognize that he can’t possibly be a true Vicar Of Christ.
The ImPopester isn’t even Christian.
He is NO Catholic!
He’s an apostate
My answer is no.
I’m just thankful that I’m no longer Catholic.
He is a Jesuit and Jesuits are Communists.
...........................................
The Pope is not Catholic and neither are the Jesuits because the Satan Council (1962-1965) destroyed the institution known as the Catholic Church by transforming it into a protestant sect.
As Catholic as Martin Luther was.
............................................
Actually Martin Luther would have been a more orthodox Pope than the Fraud who is currently soiling the Chair of Peter.
It’s going to be a Joe Biden/Nancy Pelosi type of catholic church, where abortion is the most important sacrament, homo marriage is celebrated and pagan rituals to the environment replace church traditions and traditional, conservative catholics will be excommunicated.
I always think of the prophecy of St. Malachy:
“In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End.”
I understand that most decry his “predictions” as made up or forgeries and I certainly do not know. But it is nevertheless intriguing.
He may not be the Last Pope of the Church. But he may be the last pope of the Church we recognize...
For popes have taught,
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
Not doing this has resulted in the many conservative sects and their divisions(and we have more), but at least they are conservative. But thus the RCC can indeed change basic doctrine under the premise of clarifying it, though resulting in the divisions because of V2.
And thus you have FR articles as,
Is Catholicism about to break into three?
Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’
The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional? post #6
Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?
The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope...If Francis is a true Pope …
Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis Is Pope; https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/
Thus as one poster wryly stated,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)
A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org with some detail, while we have a more charitable description by a novus ordo priest:
It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism....
Broadly speaking, “Traditionalists” adhere to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Baltimore Catechism, and Church teachings from before the Second Vatican Council...
“Magisterial” Catholics put loyalty to the authority of the pope and magisterial teaching first and foremost. They are happy with the principles of the Second Vatican Council, but want to “Reform the Reform.” They want to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with solemnity, reverence, and fine music. ..They uphold traditional Catholic teaching in faith and morals, but wish to communicate and live these truths in an up-to-date and relevant way...
The “Progressives” are vitally interested in peace and justice issues. They’re enthusiastic about serving the marginalized and working for institutional change. They are likely to embrace freer forms of worship, dabble in alternative spiritualities, and be eager to make the Catholic faith relevant and practical. Progressives believe the Church should adapt to the modern age... Maguire sums up their attitude pretty well: Progressives “don’t need the Vatican. Their conscience is their Vatican.” - Is Catholicism about to break into three? Crux Catholic Media Inc. ^ | Oct 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3778496/posts
Then we have a more charitable description:
It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism....
Broadly speaking, “Traditionalists” adhere to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Baltimore Catechism, and Church teachings from before the Second Vatican Council...
“Magisterial” Catholics put loyalty to the authority of the pope and magisterial teaching first and foremost. They are happy with the principles of the Second Vatican Council, but want to “Reform the Reform.” They want to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with solemnity, reverence, and fine music. ..They uphold traditional Catholic teaching in faith and morals, but wish to communicate and live these truths in an up-to-date and relevant way...
The “Progressives” are vitally interested in peace and justice issues. They’re enthusiastic about serving the marginalized and working for institutional change. They are likely to embrace freer forms of worship, dabble in alternative spiritualities, and be eager to make the Catholic faith relevant and practical. Progressives believe the Church should adapt to the modern age... Maguire sums up their attitude pretty well: Progressives “don’t need the Vatican. Their conscience is their Vatican.” - Is Catholicism about to break into three? Crux Catholic Media Inc. ^ | Oct 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3778496/posts
And you cannot depose a validly elected pope without his consent"
As we all know, there is no higher-ranking official in the Catholic Church than the Pope. Canon 331 is unambiguous: the Pope alone has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church. (See “Are there Any Limitations on the Power of the Pope?” for more on this topic .) Consequently, in the absence of any “special laws which have been enacted” to handle this particular situation, there is nobody on earth who has the authority to make an official determination that the Pope is incapacitated and must be removed, or that somebody else should henceforth govern in his place. (https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/31/pope-removed-from-office)
However, the NT church did not begin upon the foundation of those who sat in the seat of Moses, but upon "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20) - that of dissenters from the misleading magisterium. And thus the NT church did not begin consistent with the Catholic model for ascertaining Truth with "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (Pope Pius X) for that would have required them to submit to the judgment of the magisterium as to whom this Jesus Christ was.
For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels), then obedience to the NT church means disobedience to these distinctive Catholic teachings and the system that teaches them.
...in which the flock is to look to leadership in understanding what church teaching is
You nailed it here in your excellent post. It's always interesting how our Catholic friends preach to us about the traditions and authority of the Church and yet don't wish to follow the teachings of their leaders. If they feel that the "keys to the Kingdom" has been handed over to THIS Pope, then his saying are instructions from God. Catholics can't pick and choose what they want to believe-believing this teaching and ignoring another. They, after all, bash us Protestants over the head with this very thing (30,000 denominations???).
BTW-The mere fact that some in the Church are questioning the Pope's stance on certain issues against Biblical teaching raise hope that we will soon have more Catholics joining our Protestant ranks. Let's just hope they go to a good Bible believing Protestant church. Regrettably there aren't many of those left any longer.
Sola scriptura...and Happy Reformation Sunday!
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.