FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Question for Former Buddhist
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(06-29-2015, 01:22 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]
jovan66102 Wrote:While I totally believe that Francis is Pope, I also believe that he's shaping up to make Paul VI and John-Paul II look like absolutely great Popes!
Paul VI, in my opinion at least, was perhaps the worst Pope in the last 500 years, perhaps in history. He was responsible for so much destruction it's not even funny. Francis would have to turn Church teaching on its head at the October Synod to even approach the tragedy of a Paul VI. Papa Montini was a total train wreck.

What do you think now?
Still, waiting, FB.

Sent from my Z813 using Tapatalk

(10-18-2015, 01:36 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Still, waiting, FB.

Sent from my Z813 using Tapatalk

I just saw your post Jovan.  Are you asking whether I've changed my tune about Paul VI being the worst Pope? To be honest I've not really followed the Synod news as much as some.
I was more concerned about the fact that Pope Francis is trying 'to turn Church teaching on its head' and wondering how your comparison works now. I agree Paul was a horrible Pope, but he wasn't (at least in my opinion) trying to destroy the Faith and the Church which is what I'm beginning to think Francis is out to do.
Papa Montini is but a weak pope, for he is not trying to destroy the Church but is merely being too open-minded in a way that he let people around him to manipulate him.

Papa Bergoglio, on the other hand, really has an ideological issue to grind, and he really wants the Church to change its teaching.

N.
The comparison is  bit premature.  Pope Francis has just listened to the synod, but hasn't done anything yet.  Pope Paul, for example, listened to the objections of a synod of bishops to his proposed liturgical reform, and went ahead with it anyway.  He also listened to the commission that studied the issue of contraception, and then went against their recommendations with Humanae Vitae.  Pope Francis has heard the synod, let's see what he does next.
I do not know the history of councils and synods to the extent that SaintSebastian does, but it concerns me that a pope would sit silently in a synod and allow cardinals and bishops to spout heresy.  Not only that, the public perception of the acceptance of heresy reminds me of an historical pope who failed to take adequate steps to put down the heresy of monotheletism. 

At some point, the tolerance of heretical ideas, even if later condemned, becomes problematic in itself.  With the advent of the worldwide media, things can become problematic very, very quickly.
It depends on the synod and it's purpose.  Sometimes there is a real controversy that needs to be settled.  Even the Pope is not omniscient and he may need to hear both sides first or have the issue settled in common.  Even if the issue is settled in the Pope's mind, he may permit further debate.  For example, St. Leo said the Council of Chalcedon was a good idea even though he had already ruled on the issue.  One of the reasons he gives is as follows:

"And the result of a discussion contributes to the greater glory  of God when the debaters exert themselves with confidence in overcoming the gainsayers: that what of itself is shown wrong may not seem to be passed over in prejudicial silence."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604120.htm

This is one of the reasons Protestant representatives were invited to Trent to make their case (Session 13).

At the First Vatican Council St. Anthony Mary Claret had a stroke because, as he notes in his autobiography, "when I heard the errors and even heresies and blasphemies that
were being spoken on it [ie the primacy], I was so overcome by indignation and zeal that the blood rushed to my head and affected my brain." Notice, the Pope didn't silence anyone.

In those cases we were actually dealing with outright heresy.  Here, unless I'm mistaken, no one has out and out condemned any particular dogma, but rather the dispute is whether some proposed disciplinary changes are reconcilable with it.

You do bring up a good point, however, that it's very much a different ballgame these days with modern technology.
Very interesting information, Saint Sebastian.  It seems, then, that things could turn out in an historically congruent way if the synod ends with a rebuke of those seeking change, right?

For what it's worth, I think that this razor's edge of "no one has out and out condemned any particular dogma" is nonsensical.  There is no reason to have dogma (or doctrine) if it does not completely inform the construction and implementation of the pastoral disciplinary practice.  Now, the question whether there are changes reconcilable with the doctrine is, I suppose, a worthwhile one, but the proposed changes about which we are hearing are rather clearly not reconcilable -- to the degree that discussing them is absurd.  If we were talking about something that is a close issue, then the situation would be different. 

That is why I contend that having the discussion, even if it turns out in an historically congruent fashion, is in itself evidence that something is wrong.  While the problem of infallibility might not be at issue, setting the bar so low as to say that everything is fine so long as the pope doesn't attempt to proclaim error infallibly* seems to me to negate the purpose of the Church, which is nothing other than maintaining the truth and the sacraments in order to save souls.  In other words, the very idea of having the discussion so publicly is problematic.

Furthermore, this issue is one that was manufactured to generate discussion.  It is not as if there was an existing debate for which a synod needed to be called (as in other, historical instances).  This current synod smacks of Hegelianism, the creation of a dialectic that didn't formerly exist.  The fact that the pope is the one who created the antithesis is a problem, even if he doesn't get the synthesis that he was anticipating.


* I am not accusing anyone here of doing this, but it seems a rather common reaction in the world.
subscribed
Pages: 1 2