FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Is the Pope Catholic? The Latest From Rorate Caeli
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
It is really hard to keep up with it all these days,,,, cant help but think of that saying.."Something Evil This Way Comes.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/09....html#more

Edited by Vox to remove ALL CAPS subject line.
Sometimes I wonder if, at least for us as individuals, it really matters at all. Honestly, for hundreds of years or more most Catholics of whatever rite had no idea who the pope was or probably wouldn't have cared even if someone told them. There were times like the great western schism where there were all these rival claimants to the See and most average Catholic probably just wanted to worship in peace without getting caught in the details.
The same could be said for all those Christians that kept doing what they were doing without any knowledge of a schism when East and West officially parted.

On some level this obsession with the papacy and the person of the Pope is itself kind of ridiculous. Does our faith rise or fall with whoever happens to be Pope,or whether there is even a Pope at all? Think about it, during an interregnum there is no Pope,and yet life goes on.

A rejection of obsessive ultramontanism is probably the cure for a lot of our anxiety these days. The papacy and the pope need to be knocked down a peg. They are important up to a point, but the world itself ( or our own lives ecclesial or otherwise) do not revolve around the pope or the papal office. Maybe as a convert I just don't get the almost all encompassing obsession over the pope and the papacy of some Catholics. It just seems almost cultish.
While there is truth to this, some of us are significantly impacted by what the pope does. The pope appoints bishops, and the bishops assign pastors. A pope who appoints faithful bishops, who in turn appoints faithful pastors will aid in the salvation of souls. A pope who appoints unfaithful bishops, who in turn appoints unfaithful pastors will be more of a stumbling block.
The difference in the past was that no matter who was pope and no matter how horrible of a person he may have been, there was never a question of the faith being "changed" (divorce, homosexuals, etc.) and the way we worship changing (mass). These times are very unique. The Church is in a crisis and it certainly matters who's in charge and what they're doing. People are leaving the Church in droves (lost souls) and the hierarchy does nothing but either keep quiet or spread confusion/heresy.
What has happened lately is more than just an unhealthy, late modern obsession with personalities holding certain offices. A new law was passed that will influence deeply the local church.

Now, from what I've read Socci is being a bit exaggerated here. Article 14 deals with circumstances that could lead a bishop to decide for a quicker judgment (which I take it to mean an investigation is still launched, but a sloppier). It does not lay new grounds for annulment.
That would indeed be problematic: if the pope legislating for the whole Church (I haven't compared the two MPs to see if they differ on this point, maybe someone knows?) were to say “lack of faith”, “abortion” and “etc” are grounds for annulment he is contradicting tradition, and making marriages literally soluble. It would be far more than a change in discipline but a real, direct change in doctrine. But this is simply not the case.

Of course, things are still bad. Everybody has heard horror stories in the past—be prepared to hear them in double.

Like that girl said in the other thread, the saints are still saints (she didn't said that, but something about St. Therese's parents), God is still God and His laws are still the laws of the land. Things might be confusing here below—so much more the reason for we to look beyond the visible to the One above all Unity, the unum necessarium.

Thank you, formerbuddhist.
Trust me; it drives me crazy as hell all this nonsense. But the fact is that the most important thing about a pope is merely that there be one. For the rest, as long as the pope does not attempt to oblige the faithful to sin or believe heresy, the faithful can go on sticking to the basics and ignore his existence. If we happen to get a truly inspirational pope, all the better, but we won't be hanging out with him anyway.

The Vatican set up is a court, like it or not. And anything that is not essential about it will pass away, by attrition, or by bombs, or by secularist laws, or whatever. All we can do is spare them a sad look and say "Sic transit gloria mundi."

The problem for us is that we are too close to a memory of better times, so we have the pain of better things lost and gone perhaps forever. But as formerbuddhist mentioned, there were so many years of schisms and just think of the years of anti-popes and terrible ecclesiastical factions, often involving emperors who would have bishops arrested . . . . It was real bad in the past, and maybe we will have a time like that soon. But we can take comfort in the example set by the faithful in the past. Pray well, read the Fathers of the Church and spiritual classics, practice charity, and let the world (including the Vatican world) go on being the world.
(09-16-2015, 09:15 PM)GangGreen Wrote: [ -> ]The difference in the past was that no matter who was pope and no matter how horrible of a person he may have been, there was never a question of the faith being "changed" (divorce, homosexuals, etc.) and the way we worship changing (mass). These times are very unique. The Church is in a crisis and it certainly matters who's in charge and what they're doing. People are leaving the Church in droves (lost souls) and the hierarchy does nothing but either keep quiet or spread confusion/heresy.

That's something troubling,that even the worst Renassissannce popes did not change the content of the Faith. I suppose even during the great western schism the question was never about a rival claimant to the See of Peter who was tinkering with the contents of the Faith.

I agree the modern papacy and the modern way the Church is in externals and leadership are huge stumbling blocks. I don't feel like I can actually defend these things at all. In fact I find that if I dwell too much on this stuff I'm thrown into either sedevacantism, Orthodoxy or a reappraisal of just how much stock I must put into the papacy and what it's limits are. At this point I choose to take a very minimalist view of the papacy to avoid sedvacantism or leaving the Church altogether for Orthodoxy. The dangers are real,I'm already very " old believerish" and Slavic in my approach to the spiritual life ( and Benedictine believe it or not). While I'm not totally convinced that Rome is not the True Church I find that the Eastern Rites and being as far away from high ultramontanism and Latin Catholic Vatican politics as possible is the only way I survive.

For me, to read stuff like Rorate Caeli just makes me think that sedevacantism is about the only reasonable answer to the crisis in the Church if we must hold to the high Ultramontanist view that seems to be in currency amongst traditional and neo conservative Latin Rite Catholics, this holding ones breath as the pope speaks lest the world falls apart.  Does the Faith itself-- that of the Church and ours as individuals--- stand or fall with whoever happens to be the Pope?

I get it, what the Pope says and does are stumbling blocks and do matter, but how much should we as individuals focus on it? How much should we care? The thing is, whole generations are passing away with no end to the crisis in Catholicism anywhere on the horizon,are we going to spend our entire lives riding a roller coaster of ups and downs based on what any given pope says or does? I ask all this rhetorically,I've got no answers.


And yes, pray and do the best you can and,as Maldon wisely put it  " let the world ( including the Vatican) go on bring the world.
St. Gregory Nazianzen (I believe, not certain) wrote that you went to buy bread and the baker would shout “the Son is one substance with the Father”, you went somewhere else and some guy would start musing about how the Son was created. Famously, also, there were riots in favor of the Theotokos (in opposition to the simple Christotokos).

This blessed ignorance you're saying was the practice of most Christians is simply historically false.

I completely agree there is an unhealthy obsession with the pope, but nobody here is concerned about the latest off the cuff pope remark, or his disastrously bad grasp of politics. These are official Church documents.

I have been thinking....so....I "think" i 'll blame it on.......The Enlightenment :P
Yes, the papacy matters. Never underestimate the power of a strong leader. Peter "confirms the brethren." Even in the secular field, a strong leader gives courage to everyone under him; his acts create an avalanche of similar acts under him. The leader of a billion people could be a force to be reckoned with, and used to be.

Francis' insidious acts of subversion do the opposite. His betrayal of Christ and His sacraments are a persecution of the Christians under him, and he strengthens the enemies of Christ. Is the pope Catholic? Of course. But Francis, without a doubt, is not Catholic.
Pages: 1 2 3