Replies

I never want to be opposite of the Church, and because the Pope IS in fact the Vicar of Christ, to attack him is to attack Jesus Christ Himself.

Let's be discerning here. To attack the office of the Papacy is to attack Jesus Christ. To reject something that is solemnly defined is to attack the truth of Jesus Christ proclaimed by the Church of Jesus Christ.

However, to differ with the Pope's prudential judgement on a matter of discipline or personal behavior is not an "attack on Jesus Christ". It was not an attack on Christ when Christ himself called Peter "Satan" in Mt 16, it was not an attack on Christ when Paul "resisted Peter to his face" in Gal 2, and it was not an attack on Christ when St. Catherine of Siena told the last Avignon pope that he belonged in Rome.

Believing that Assisi, or kissing the Koran, or making Roger Mahony Cardinal Archbishop of LA were blunders in prudential wisdom (IMO, all of them were) does not make one less of a Catholic, and is not somehow tantamount to sedevacantism.

Now that is true - but using those events

to constantly hammer the pontiff as a pagan lefist wingnut
or
to excuse schism
or
to excuse dissent on matters of faith and morals

(as some often do)

is outright sinful in that is wholly uncharitable as well as a cause for undermining the one true faith.

I understand your point, and this is where this gets difficult. Where do we draw the line? Where do we say this dissent is acceptable and this dissent is heretical?

Perhaps my difficulty is that I have recently (three years ago) come back to the church after more than 20 years as an Easter-Christmas Catholic. I am still learning, as we are all called to do until our death, and therefore I don't want to make grave mistakes.

Personally, I think that homosexual priests should be removed from the priesthood, or placed in a non-parish, non-public position (like a monestary) to repent and seek forgiveness for their sins. But I am reminded of the Scripture from Mass last Sunday, the parable of the wheat and the weeds. The need for tolerance and the call to not judge, but to leave the judgement to our Lord, because we do not know who the wheat and who the weeds are.

God bless.

However, to differ with the Pope's prudential judgement on a matter of discipline or personal behavior is not an "attack on Jesus Christ".

Believing that Assisi, or kissing the Koran, or making Roger Mahony Cardinal Archbishop of LA were blunders in prudential wisdom (IMO, all of them were) does not make one less of a Catholic, and is not somehow tantamount to sedevacantism.

Well said. This author paints with such a broad brush that he condemns not only most loyal and faithful traditionalists but also a very large percentage of conservative Catholics as well.

He is a loose cannon just as dangerous as the extreme trads and integrists he bemoans.