FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Do we have to listen to the Pope?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
(01-08-2020, 02:00 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2020, 01:47 AM)Missbeliever Wrote: [ -> ]He's speaking as Pope, not off the cuff in some unrecorded interview, not in some private journal somewhere, he is intending to lead Catholics and the world down this road.

And as has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, he IS NOT SPEAKING EX CATHEDRA IN ANY WAY THAT REQUIRES US TO BELIEVE. We have had heretic Popes before and the Church has survived. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside which their is no salvation, will survive Popes who are immoral (the Pornocracy and the Renaissance), Popes who are heretics (John XXII and Francis come to mind), and Popes who are more interested in the world than in saving souls (again, some of the Renaissance Popes and Francis).  The Church will always remain and those who leave it, leave it at the peril of their immortal souls!

I will be praying for you.
Then why is he the leader? Is his only position to make ex cathedra statements?
On the practical side, I don't understand why there is a pope at all if only his ex cathedra statements have to be listened to. What is  his role then, what is he supposed to do?
(01-08-2020, 03:05 AM)Missbeliever Wrote: [ -> ]Then why is he the leader? Is his only position to make ex cathedra statements?
On the practical side, I don't understand why there is a pope at all if only his ex cathedra statements have to be listened to. What is  his role then, what is he supposed to do?

He's supposed to be what St Pius X said - Father, Pastor, Universal Teacher. The job of the Pope is not to invent new doctrines, but to faithfully pass on what has been handed down from the Apostles.

Because he's the representative of Christ on Earth, he's to be listened to, and his statements should be considered even when they're not ex cathedra. But just like your biological father is supposed to teach and guide you, sometimes he's not very good at it, and sometimes he's downright abusive. And when there's a bad Pope, and his statements contradict the constant teaching of the Church, they have to be ignored, just like one can't stay around an abusive father.

Jesus gave the Pope the power to bind and loose. Whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. Except Pope Francis doesn't do much binding, especially when it comes to anything doctrinal. St Paul VI wanted to explain to the Church why artificial birth control was a sin, so he wrote an entire encyclical on it. And Humanae vitae explains why. But Pope Francis just sticks things into the Catechism, which is a summary of Church teaching, whose contents are only as authoritative as their sources.

"Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that 'the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person',[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."

What's the source for this? Well, the footnote tells you: FRANCIS, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.

The Pope citing himself is hardly something that's been believed always, everywhere, by everyone. And he's not an expert on systems of incarceration, and doesn't explain what these "new understandings" are, or whether these "more effective systems of detention" exist in somewhere like, say, Nigeria, where Islamic militants routinely behead Christians. If the government of Nigeria were able to capture and imprison them, are their prisons good enough to prevent an escape, or a rescue by other members of Boko Haram, which would likely involve the murder of at least the prison guards?

Since the Pope said it, we're to consider it, and accept it if it fits with what the Church has always taught, or if he defines it as something to be definitively held by the faithful. Pope Francis does none of that, which is probably a pretty good sign from God that papal infallibility really is a thing, and He's making it work exactly as intended by preventing Francis from binding the Church to falsehood.
I don't see how someone who is not Christian can be head of Jesus' Church?
I'm sorry to be so dense, but I just can't follow this line of thinking. It seems like it is pretty clear to you, but I am so confused. Does anyone find this terribly confusing?
(01-08-2020, 06:19 PM)Missbeliever Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see how someone who is not Christian can be head of Jesus' Church?
I'm sorry to be so dense, but I just can't follow this line of thinking. It seems like it is pretty clear to you, but I am so confused. Does anyone find this terribly confusing?

It is terribly confusing.

One consolation for me are the warnings that Our Lady gave time and again about this very thing.

Are you familiar with the messages of Our Lady of Good Success, Our Lady of La Salette (see my signature below) Our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of the Revelation?
Can you all set me straight? Some Catholics insist that the pope 'only' has spoken 'ex cathedra' on the validity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Others broaden the papal power to 'faith and morals' in such a broad way that it appears to take in a lot more dictates.

I have read traditional Catholics assert the first position, but others who insist that the Petrine power verifies far more than these two doctrines. I also get confused: if this was issued in 1870-ish as part of the (unfinished) Vatican I, is it retroactively declaring papal infallibility? And is this infallible judgement extended to include decisions by the collective episcopate as the Spirit moves this part of the Mystical Body, that's declared in union with the informed wisdom of a Bishop of Rome? I'm reading Bp. Tissot's big bio of Abp. Lefebvre and these issues are being debated by clerics and bishops as very germane to (post)V2. I confess being raised in that era, I never got a clear grasp on this subtle and complex topic.
I am reminded of the old joke. The German theologian is convinced that no Pope has ever spoken infallibly, whereas the Irish PP is convinced that every time the Pope sneezes, he's infallible.

As to the 'retroactivity', yes it 'it retroactively declar(ed) papal infallibility'. Otherwise it would be a 'new' dogma, and such a thing cannot exist. Notice that Pastor æternus says that it is 'divinely revealed dogma'. Public (binding) revelation ceased with the death of St John the Evangelist, so if it's 'divinely revealed', it must have always been true.


Quote:9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
(01-08-2020, 06:19 PM)Missbeliever Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see how someone who is not Christian can be head of Jesus' Church?
I'm sorry to be so dense, but I just can't follow this line of thinking. It seems like it is pretty clear to you, but I am so confused. Does anyone find this terribly confusing?

Which is why there are sedevacantists and benevacantists. God will come to the aid of His Church and will get this mess cleared up. For practically a century Catholics did not know who was the real Pope at one time. There was a Pope in France, and one in Rome; there was at one point a second Pope in Rome, so three popes at one time. Still, despite all this confusion God's Will prevailed and we received clarification on the matter via the Council of Constance.

Remember that at that time there were saints who believed in either pope/anti-pope. They made their decisions but what was most important above all was that they carried out their salvation with fear and trembling and that they trusted in God's Will for His Church. They stayed closed to the Church and received the sanctifying grace through the Sacraments.

So I know that this doesn't answer your question, but since your faith is struggling, and this question is bothering, I hope you get some sort of consolation from it.

We all on here have taken our own personal views regarding this papacy, but look at the beauty in spite of this tragic confusion.
Benevacantists/sedevacantists/recognize&resist/faithful conservative NO Catholics...we all still hold true to moral teachings of the Church. You would get the same answer from any of these groups when you question them about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the belief in the True Presence in the Eucharist, the importance of praying the Holy Rosary of the Most Blessed Virgin Mother.

Hold strong, GOD IS AT WORK and He writes straight with crooked lines.
(01-08-2020, 06:19 PM)Missbeliever Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see how someone who is not Christian can be head of Jesus' Church?
I'm sorry to be so dense, but I just can't follow this line of thinking. It seems like it is pretty clear to you, but I am so confused. Does anyone find this terribly confusing?

The Pope is a Christian, even if he's not a good one. He's baptised, which makes him a Christian. One who is a heretic separates himself from the Church, but for someone to lose his office, he has to be judged to be a heretic. And nobody has the authority to judge the Pope except God. (The Pope cannot be schismatic, since schism requires rejecting communion with the Pope, and he can't lose communion with himself.)
(01-09-2020, 12:39 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2020, 06:19 PM)Missbeliever Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see how someone who is not Christian can be head of Jesus' Church?
I'm sorry to be so dense, but I just can't follow this line of thinking. It seems like it is pretty clear to you, but I am so confused. Does anyone find this terribly confusing?

The Pope is a Christian, even if he's not a good one. He's baptised, which makes him a Christian. One who is a heretic separates himself from the Church, but for someone to lose his office, he has to be judged to be a heretic. And nobody has the authority to judge the Pope except God. (The Pope cannot be schismatic, since schism requires rejecting communion with the Pope, and he can't lose communion with himself.)
If schism requires rejecting communion with the Pope, then it doesn't sound like many of you are in communion with the Pope. What does it mean to be in communion with the Pope?
To go to an una cum Mass and receive Holy Communion, which I and, I'm sure the vast majority of Fishies, do at least every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5