Posted on 10/09/2016 3:31:16 PM PDT by NYer
Pope Francis announced his choices for new Catholic cardinals Sunday, promoting a number of well-known progressives while snubbing conservatives who were up for the job.
In all, the Pope named 17 new cardinals, including 13 who are under 80 years old and therefore eligible to participate in the conclave electing the next pope.
Notably, in his selection for cardinals from among the United States bishops, Francis named the recently appointed archbishop of Chicago, Blaise Cupich, a man with impeccable liberal credentials. He also broke with protocol by choosing Archbishop William Tobin of Indianapolis, a relatively small archdiocese never before considered important enough to have a cardinal at its helm.
On the other hand, the Pope passed over the conservative archbishops of Philadelphia, Detroit and Los Angeles—Charles Chaput, Allen Vigneron and José Gómez, respectively—despite the fact that their three important archdioceses have in recent memory always been considered “cardinalatial sees.”
Archbishop Chaput was responsible for bringing Pope Francis to the United States in September 2015, hosting the pontiff for the World Meeting of Families.
Veteran Vatican analyst John Allen noted that with his new appointments, Pope Francis had engineered a “seismic shift” in the Catholic hierarchy in the United States, and by naming just progressives, “Francis was making a statement about the direction in which he wants the American church to go.”
The Pope’s picks also underscore the very real divisions within the U.S. Catholic bishops conference.
A year ago, Archbishops Cupich and Chaput faced off over a theologically indefensible op-ed published by the Chicago Archbishop that suggested that abortion was no more important than a number of other social justice issues such as unemployment, immigration and capital punishment.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I believe that rather than denouncing him we might find it in our hearts to pray for him. THAT seems to be the better Catholic path than this endless denunciation.
Just a thought.
A wise old priest once told me, “Don’t you worry; the Holy Spirit is still guiding the Church.”
People have to hold fast to Church teaching and ignore the human teachers. The Sacraments are what matter. Francis is just the chief servant of the Church. It’s the Eucharist that truly saves.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
The truth is, if people had been and were holding fast to Church teaching and ignoring the human teachers, they would have rejected the entire event of the Vatican II council as far as its validity, and include not recognizing the pontificate of so-called John XXIII nor any of his successors in crime.
In fact numbers of truly wise and faithful Catholics have held fast to or returned to Church teaching, as they have searched for and found Sacraments in practice as they were at the time of the last valid pontiff, that of Pope Pius XII.
A very good sampling of where faithful can still find valid Mass and Sacraments is here: http://www.cmri.org/traditional-latin-mass-directory.shtml#USA
One glaring example of the many heresies propogated by the invalid council is the changing of the words of consecration, which so doing, Pope Pius V had declared, makes one worthy of damnation. That was an infallible declaration, as are the official acts of all of the popes.
(In fact, it would be impossible for a future pope or one of his councils to reverse truth, as truth is unchanging.)
Thus it is most especially obvious that today’s “Francis” is no pope at all, for if he could as pope harm the Church and commit heresy, then the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against the Church.
The evidence thus tells the flock that he is no pope and we plead with and await the Holy Ghost to bring about a valid pope once again, even as He started the Church in the upper room, breathing upon the apostles as He truly did at that time!
And as Mary told young Francisco in Fatima (paraphrase): “YOU must pray many rosaries...”
Incorrect. If that were the case, the gates of Hell would have prevailed against the Church over a thousand years ago when Honorius gave tacit approval to the Monothelite heresy. Remember: Honorius was *anathematized* by an ecumenical council, and I believe that anathema carried Pope Agatho's approval.
The Pope can commit heresy personally. He just can't define it ex cathedra as binding on the whole Church. Read the definition from Vatican I very carefully and note what it says and doesn't say. The Fathers at that council had the case of Honorius staring them right in the face when they made the definition.
The Pope can commit heresy personally. He just can’t define it ex cathedra as binding on the whole Church.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+
Please consider this quote in rebuttal to your above claim:
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. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.
If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.
(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241)
(From: http://novusordowatch.org/2015/04/vatican-i-popes-follow-up/)
I don’t see the contradiction with what I posted.
Honorius promoted/allowed a heresy, and he was posthumously anathematized. Anathematized meaning he ceased to become Catholic.
But—note well—in this case Honorius was never deposed. He died in 638 still Pope. He was followed by eight more Popes. Then, 40 years having passed, we got Pope St. Agatho and the condemnation of Honorius.
So in all this forty years, was there anyone arguing that Honorius left his see vacant and all the Popes from Severinus on were not true popes?
You can’t mentally convict a Pope of heresy and then just decide that he is therefore not Pope, or that subsequent Popes are not valid. You may have your personal opinion and that’s fine. But for it to be binding, it has to be done officially and ratified by a Pope and Council, the way the 6th Ecumenical Council anathematized Honorius or the Council of Constance settled the Avignon mess. If Francis or any modern pope needed to be anathematized, it’d have to be by the same process.
And that stands to reason right? Or else every dummy could just go around inventing their own arbitrary papal lines and claimants.
To answer just one of your remarks for now (more in a later post).
Thus addressing your remark: “You can’t mentally convict a Pope of heresy and then just decide that he is therefore not Pope, ...But for it to be binding, it has to be done officially and ratified by a Pope and Council...”
Binding is taken care of by God. I can live my life freely based on what God has bound as long as I am aware of it. A manifest heretic cannot be pope and is already judged by God as such.
The expression of my opinions are important to the Church, for it can be at times through the assistance of a layman’s or a combination of movements exhibited by the flock that the Church comes to declare something as binding. (Just as the bleating of the sheep can call to the attention of the shepherd that an enemy has infiltrated the flock.)
It is thus, that as I attend faithfully the Mass as it has been said properly for centuries by the Church, said by a Priest ordained in the apostolic line of succession, yet while not accepting imposters as pope, that I become a sign to the Church such that she may soon declare some official pronouncements against recent claimants to the chair, all with the aid of my “bleating”!
How many sheep must be eaten before a sheep is allowed to bleat out its alarm at the presence of a false shepherd? Must it await permission from the shepherd to bring something to his attention (or doesn’t it always have his permission, as in “PRAY always.”)?
I know, I am using small case for the words "pope" and "cardinal" but I just am losing respect for the church of my youth...
“Honorius promoted/allowed a heresy, and he was posthumously anathematized. Anathematized meaning he ceased to become Catholic.
But—note well—in this case Honorius was never deposed. He died in 638 still Pope. He was followed by eight more Popes. Then, 40 years having passed, we got Pope St. Agatho and the condemnation of Honorius.”
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
From what source(s) does this information hail? (What publication so reports that Honorius was anathematized and condemned)?
The Catholic Encyclopedia (the old one ca. 1913) gives the history:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
But if you want primary source documentation, here are the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm
In your Catholic Encyclopedia source, newadvent.org we find a bit of controversy over the topic.
One example found in http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
reads,
“Bellarmine and Baronius followed Pighius in denying that Honorius was condemned at all.”
So wherein does your argument find such force, with Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church in such opposition, (according to your own source, to boot!)?
Well, I am not a historian of the period, but the actual text of the Acta suggest to me that the great St. Robert Bellarmine erred in his historical assessment.
“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!!”
That is a classic condemnation formula.
How does this not apply to your stated case? At Vatican I, this question was asked. The answer was "there was never such a case". How does Honorius suddenly become such a case? Wouldn't the Cardinals at Vatican I know the correct history of the Church? It is clear that Honorius' situation is not the same and Catholics need to stop using him as an example to "prove" that popes can be manifest heretics and remain the head of the Church.
Good point. Before the Church can declare in these sorts of cases, each individual clergy would need to make a private judgment about the matter as well. We have made a private judgment on the matter and have based it on Catholic Church teaching.
And no one is binding opinions here.
Was answered by whom that there was never such a case? One cardinal who disagreed? The majority of assembled bishops?? A scholarly panel?
You are citing from a secondary source. We will be arguing in circles unless we have in front of us the actual proceedings of Vatican I, if such a thing is even available online. As for my part, I posted the actual Acta of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which contains anathemas against Honorius as a heretic. Now if that is not what it looks like, then fine, but I need to see the entire justification for that, not just brief pull quotes.
And no, I am *not* saying the Pope can be a manifest heretic and remain the head of the Church. If he is a manifest heretic he loses the headship of the Church by that very fact—at least that’s how I understand it.
What I am saying is that Church’s official declaration of that fact can come years later, after he is dead and has been replaced several times over. But that is something the hierarchical Church needs to do, and not individuals.
You don't see the grave peril in this? And suppose my private judgment told me that Pius X was no true Pope because he completely gutted the Roman Office? Or if my private judgment maintained that Pius XI's Lateran Treaty was in direct violation of Unam Sanctam?
Honorius was mentioned by the Council Fathers as part of this particular discussion and they explained that Honorius' letter was to an individual not to the universal church and therein lies a difference. They did not consider him a manifest heretic. The question “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?”, therefore, was a separate question and did not pertain to Honorius. As a result, the answer was "there was never such a case".
But I am glad that we agree on the other points. I agree that the Church will someday make the necessary declarations. In the mean time, it is necessary for me to avoid all heresies promoted by the post-Vatican II church and I will continue to speak out against them so that others can avoid them as well.
You can not possibly compare Vatican II to any other time/situation/pope in Church history. We are in unchartered waters.
I can compare it, and I do compare it. What happened to the Mass in 1970 was foreshadowed not only by the total reorganization of the Divine Office but also by the neoGallican reforms in France.
What's that old saying? History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
But I am glad that we agree on the other points. I agree that the Church will someday make the necessary declarations.
I don't think we do agree on this. Because I am not sure what declarations will be made and what the conclusions will be or if I am on the right side of them. I don't front run the Church in that regard, I just stick up for tradition and trust it'll be sorted out eventually (though I cannot guess how).
Christ promised the gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church. And the Catholic Church goes on, holding fast to the doctrine it received from the Apostles.
I’m not worried; the weak seed is being winnowed out.
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.