Posted on 01/19/2023 9:59:45 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Pope Francis is just full of surprises. Word has now emerged that the Pope, using coarse language, advised Spanish seminarians that, even if the person making a confession is not penitent and does not intend to repent in the future, priests must grant that person absolution. By doing so, Francis departed from Catholic doctrine. More than that, he has just removed eternal punishment for any and all crimes and sins. As I said, full of surprises.
The Catholic Herald has the details:
Priests should grant absolution in the confessional even when the penitent has no intention to repent, the Pope has said in a speech which has shocked seminarians.
The Holy Father put aside a written speech, describing it as “boring”, and delivered an off-the-cuff address to seminarians from Barcelona, Spain, in which he frequently used foul language.
In his address, he ordered students for the priesthood “not to be clerical, to forgive everything”, adding that “if we see that there is no intention to repent, we must forgive all”.
“We can never deny absolution, because we become a vehicle for an evil, unjust, and moralistic judgment,” Francis reportedly told the seminarians, who were accompanied by the Auxiliary Bishop Javier Vilanova Pellisa of Barcelona.
Priests who deny penitents absolution are “delinquents”, the Pontiff said, according to the Church Militant website.
Did he really say that priests shouldn’t be vehicles for “moralistic judgment”? I thought the whole point was that priests existed to aid their parishioners in living a moral life consistent with Biblical teachings in order to prepare them for a deserved ascension to Heaven in the afterlife. Without that morality bit, the Church reverts to the paganism of placating gods who behave in random, usually immoral or amoral, fashion.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“The individual, the validity of whose purported resignation is being drawn into question, is clearly no longer Pope.”
Yes, he is clearly no longer pope, but that doesn’t make the matter of the validity of his registration a purely academic question, since it would still have a definite impact on the current state of affairs one way or the other.
“The death of a Roman Pontiff produces an interregnum. That is the assertion—that we are currently in an interregnum.”
Only if you can positively assert that Benedict’s resignation actually was invalid in the first place. For if it was valid, then you in fact do have a pope and are not in any interregnum.
“Surely you are not of the opinion that Bergoglio is in a position to declare whether he is an antipope or not, or whether Benedict’s resignation was valid or not.”
Well, as I am not a Catholic, or at best a “lapsed Catholic”, I don’t think my opinion on the matter actually matters much at all. I’m more interested in what the opinion of Catholics on the matter is. But if you really want my opinion, it seems clear to me that individual Catholics are not allowed to make their own judgements on such matters (or they would be little different than protestants). So if not the individual, then it must be the opinion of either the pope, the bishops, or both, that decides. And if the pope can’t rule on his own case, then it would appear that leaves only the bishops to decide, and they do not seem to be in much disagreement on the matter, so it would appear that the question is settled already and those who disagree are doing so in disobedience to the authority of their church.
But that’s just how it seems to me. Perhaps I am missing some key information, but since I can’t seem to get any clear answers when I ask Catholics about this, I’m left to think that my view of the matter is probably the correct one and people are just not comfortable admitting that this is in fact the case.
Hierarchy is everything in the Catholic church. The Pope is at the top and crap rolls down hill.
In partial answer to your last comment:
Pursuant to Can. 332§2, acceptance of the validity of a purported papal resignation by most or almost all of the bishops/cardinals is not a factor as to whether such purported resignation was in fact valid.
Practically speaking, it would appear that if even just one saintly prelate or prince of Holy Mother Church decides to throw down the gauntlet and declare open the question of Benedict’s purported resignation, this will be sufficient to trigger a full and complete investigation of the matter, not led by or influenced by Bergoglio, and presumably leading presently to a definitive conclusion.
Also, Jesus said we’re to forgive seventy times seven. And so must the priest, with good faith that the person has repented.
The clearest answer is that:
'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)
...having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation? Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived....”
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
To the contrary, 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).
And, by the grace of God, I know of no thread (amid a vast collection) I was part of in the last 10 years in which there were solid Catholic arguments for these distinctive Catholic teachings.
I thought the whole point was that priests existed to aid their parishioners in living a moral life consistent with Biblical teachings in order to prepare them for a deserved ascension to Heaven in the afterlife.
You ain't EVER GONNA EARN IT. If we could EARN it and DESERVE it God didn't really need to give us his son did he?
Indeed, but the Catholic Herald writer does express what Catholicism effectually conveys.
If accurate, the Pope’s remarks appear to put him at odds
According to reports, Francis also used his
Oddly enough, this Pope and President Trump do share one thing in common some times... anonymous sourcing...
Okey-dokey.
:-)
One does the best one can.
By the grace of God, may the scales fall from your eyes.
Soar with the eagles and then you will NOT use fowl language!
This thread is just FULL of Prots!!
But has Christ abandoned him?
In America, no one’s got the balls to make a demented President step down if...
...binding and loosing... comes back to bite.
Still stalking me, even on threads that I haven’t posted.
Living rent free in your head.
Like penis envy, prot envy appears to be legit as well.
We prots (can I speak for the rest of us?) tend to accept BIBLICAL arguments instead of CATHOLIC ones.
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.