Posted on 01/20/2015 4:17:20 AM PST by marshmallow
There are five revealing details that emerge from the papal trip to Sri Lanka and Philippines. Five details that perhaps help us to understand better this pontificate, as well the expectations surrounding it. Each of these details can be understood through a single interpretative key, as explained by Pope Francis himself: the Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, that Francis considers something like his governing program.
Evangelii gaudium is first of all the criterion through which Pope Francis chooses saints to be canonized. The formula the Pope has often used is that of the “equipollent canonization,” i.e., the proclamation of a saint whose veneration is widespread, without the need of a second miracle as required by the regular procedure. Pope Francis wanted to explain in person why he continues to make saints this way, probably aware that he had been much criticized for excessive use of the procedure. The Pope explained his ‘picks’ among new saints during his in-flight presser from Sri Lanka to the Philippines on January 15th. At the beginning of his remarks, he underscored that he had inherited from Benedict XVI the process of equipollent canonization (that of Angela of Foligno), and that he then chose other saints to canonize with the “simplified procedure” on the basis of the evangelizing criterion in Evangelii gaudium which calls for the Church to be in a state of permament mission. So in his view the saints he selects for this special procedure are noteworthy evangelizers who exemplify the central message of Evangelii gaudium. After Joseph Vaz, the most important missionary of Asia, who was canonized last week in the Philippines, the next candidate for equipollent canonization will be Junipero Serra when the Pope travels to the United States in September.
The announcement of Junipero Serra’s forthcoming canonization was made by.....
(Excerpt) Read more at mondayvatican.com ...
Wellll.... yes and no, depending on what you mean by disregard it.
He affirmed its finding already. And even if he didn’t, he can’t change doctrine. I guess he could try to establish canon law in contradiction to that doctrine, but then the bishops all have their own apostolic authority. All hell would break loose (literally), and all he would accomplish is the diminution of his own authority and lots of confusion. If he tried to issue a heretical doctrinal statement, he’d probably be declared an antipope. That’s if he wasn’t struck dead by divine intervention first. (Don’t laugh; it’s happened.)
And Obama can't unilaterally change the Constitution, either, but there is no need to do so when ignoring the law accomplishes the same goal.
The “see no evil” approach to reality fueled the clergy pervert abuse scandal, the Vatican Bank scandal, the Lavender Mafia infestation of the Church, and the present worldwide apostasy. We are called by God to defend the Faith both from without and from WITHIN, not bury our heads in the sand.
“He is totally...I say TOTALLY in charge...of doing with them what is best according to HIS plan.”
Where does free will enter into the equation? Your statement implies that objective evils committed by clergy and the damage their actions inflict on individual souls is “doing what is best with them according to HIS plan”. This is an overly simplistic view of what it means to trust in God. And trust in God and normal human reactions aren’t mutually exclusive. “Jesus wept”. John 11:35
Obama can’t rewrite the Constitution, but he can pretend it doesn’t exist, or it says whatever he claims it says, and you and I are compelled by the power of the state to act as if the Constitution says whatever Obama says it says. The power of the Catholic church is moral suasion. If the pope proclaims that gay sex is permitted, every priest that performs a gay marriage is still going straight to Hell (with all the standard caveats about the possibility of conversion, the requirement for action under free will, etc.). Further, he adds to his torment the punishment of every soul who he misleads into gay marriage. Further, the bishops bear at the cost of their own salvation the burden of doing everything possible to declare him a heretic and an anti-pope and refuse his teaching.
In a way, I think that this pope is imprudent, yet not heretical may be a blessing. For too long, conservatives have simply responded to heresy by saying, “the pope says...” The confusing, ambiguous language of this pope is making orthodox stand up for doctrine, not merely a cult of personality.
And that is no criticism of John Paul II or Benedict XVI! They needed a little bit of cult of personality to counter the insane liberalism of the Post-Vatican Council, and the Holy Spirit blessed them with it! But now that orthodoxy is better re-established, I believe the Holy Spirit is training orthodox Catholics to stand on doctrine, not a mere appeal to authority.
Where does free will enter into the equation?
_________________________
We exercise our faith and we choose to TRUST God. We also pray in that same spirit of Faith. There are those who weep and pray.
There was nothing confusing or ambiguous in the support he voiced for the Kasper plan (an objectively heretical proposal).
I would posit that everyone needs to go back and look at what he said so CLEARLY at the end of the Synod Meeting. It would also be wise to read his daily homilies. If people actually did this (perhaps after they have finished their daily prayers for the Pope, Clergy, Church, etc.) they would probably be much more at peace.
Do you believe that "weeping and praying" when the clergy are harming the sheep is a sufficient response?
Saint John Paul II wrote beautiful encyclicals on the family and he was summarily ignored at Francis’ recent Synod of the Family.
Well, now. If that’s the case and I have no reason to doubt you. There must be a good reason for it. Cool!
I agree. His off the cuff non-theological statements are more a reflection of his Argentinian environment where people talk even in their sleep.
Do you believe that “weeping and praying” when the clergy are harming the sheep is a sufficient response?
________________________
That depends on the Divine will for all concerned in the situation. Many times, though...yes, it is sufficient, particularly when I am not a party directly involved in the situation. Sometimes, fasting and sacrifice are also necessary. The Holy Spirit, often working through our spiritual director will guide us.
When we are prompted to whitewash the truth or defend the indefensible we are most assuredly not being guided by the Holy Spirit.
You don’t by chance have a link, do you?
Of course!
Hardly unambiguously supporting heresy! The Pope was quite clear that he was commenting on Kaspar’s address the previous night, not on any of Kaspar’s far more problematic further comments. To be clear, Kaspar specifically renounced that evening many of the problematic proposals he earlier certainly seemed to be endorsing:
“[The Church] cannot propose a solution that is different from or contrary to the words of Jesus. The indissolubility of sacramental marriage and the impossibility of a new marriage during the lifetime of the other partner is part of the tradition of the Church’s binding faith that cannot be abandoned or undone by appealing to a superficial understanding of cheapened mercy...
“...It would be mistaken to seek the solution of the problem only in a generous expansion of the procedure of nullity of marriage. This would create the dangerous impression that the Church is proceeding in a dishonest manner in granting what in reality are divorces.”
Kaspar did raise proposals that the synod did not endorse, presumably because they are still problematic, but Pope Francis’ praise didn’t specifically endorse those proposals. Indeed, what would be the purpose of the synod if to praise the raising of a question could be equated directly with endorsing it as an answer?
First, the fact that Pope Francis is even willing to ENTERTAIN proposals which are manifestly contrary to the teachings of Christ seems indefensible. Essentially Kasper is promoting a change in discipline which will effectively undermine doctrine. Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has pointed out that to separate discipline from doctrine is heretical. Secondly, Francis' praise of Kasper's theology constitutes a double endorsement by him of the same heretical ideas which have been previously promoted by Cardinal Martini, whom he has also lavishly praised.
The purpose of the synod is whatever the Pope wants it to be. Note that he has insisted on including the rejected sections pertaining to the Kasper heresy in the final synod document, despite the fact that they failed to receive the requisite number of votes from the synod participants. This action in conjunction with the fact that he was also the initiator of Kasper's keynote presentation leads to the logical conclusion that he looks favorably upon the Kasper proposal.
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.