Criticizing the Pope
#41
(03-03-2016, 05:03 PM)ermy_law Wrote: So, in your view, there is a meaningful difference between someone who holds an heretical belief and a heretic?  Is not a heretic, by definition, one who holds an heretical belief? 

Not just in my view, in the Church's view.  Being declared a heretic is a judicial act that goes beyond simply holding a heretical belief.  It requires jurisdiction that neither of us has.

Quote:As you can see in the quote you provided, the Church recognizes the doctrine in some way: it is expounded by the magisterium.  Once the magisterium has taught the doctrine, it is possible to make evaulations about whether someone holds the established doctrine as true or not, especially when that person makes public statements and engages in public acts.  That is why you would be able to take notice of your hypothetical co-worker's heretical beliefs.  That, combined with your knowledge that this hypothetical person professes to be Catholic, supports the judgment that the person is a heretic.

Again, there is a difference between holding a heretical belief and being declared a heretic. 

Quote:There is a secondary question related to the culpability that this person has for his heresy, but that isn't what we're talking about here, since I would hope most people would expect the pope to have some knowledge of the Church's teachings, which makes his heresy of the culpable sort.

Agreed, although that's very peripheral.

Quote:I know what the phrase "forest for the trees" means, but you didn't use it in a way that makes sense.

Forest = the discussion of respectfulness.
Trees = the mechanics of the Constitution

IOW, the tangent comment on Senate duties misses the point.  Imagine if my example had mentioned shades of yellow and the response latched onto a discussion of the color wheel.
Reply
#42
(03-03-2016, 04:49 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Romans 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers."


Why don't these journalists go after Talmudists and hold their feet to the fire?

Nevermind. I already know the answer. But it gets really, really old seeing Catholic teaching crapped on while post-Temple Judaism gets not only a free pass, but obeisance.

Anyway, that interviewer in that video is acting like a jerk and seems to be not bright at all. And don't you just LOVE how all of these non-Catholics, progressive Catholics, and cafeteria Catholics are all of a sudden alllllll about not honoring the Pope and true obedience, but outright papolatry? My gosh, can they BE any more obvious?

Didn't it tick you off how the interviewer asks him, "What are your sins?" -- and then just stares at him, looking at him like he wants to kill him? His game was to be silent in the hopes that he'd just ramble. Annoying. If he'd done that to me, I think I'd have said, after 5 seconds of silence, "Ah, so we're done then? I'll be going! Have a great day!" and walked out. Or just sat there and stared back at him in the same way. Or just yawn and start examining my cuticles. Or close my eyes and watch a movie in my head.

The interviewer acted as if he were the Pope himself. I think Felley handled it rather well, if it were me I would have gotten so angry. The interviewer seems to ignore that he himself is addressing a bishop of the Church, he should take his own advice and give him his respect even though he doesn't agree with him. When he asked him what his sins were, Felley should have said something along the lines of "I'm the priest here, what are YOUR sins?"
Reply
#43
(03-03-2016, 05:16 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote:
(03-03-2016, 05:03 PM)ermy_law Wrote: So, in your view, there is a meaningful difference between someone who holds an heretical belief and a heretic?  Is not a heretic, by definition, one who holds an heretical belief? 

Not just in my view, in the Church's view.  Being declared a heretic is a judicial act that goes beyond simply holding a heretical belief.  It requires jurisdiction that neither of us has.

Quote:As you can see in the quote you provided, the Church recognizes the doctrine in some way: it is expounded by the magisterium.  Once the magisterium has taught the doctrine, it is possible to make evaulations about whether someone holds the established doctrine as true or not, especially when that person makes public statements and engages in public acts.  That is why you would be able to take notice of your hypothetical co-worker's heretical beliefs.  That, combined with your knowledge that this hypothetical person professes to be Catholic, supports the judgment that the person is a heretic.

Again, there is a difference between holding a heretical belief and being declared a heretic. 

So, in your estimation, saying that someone is a heretic (by comparing his statements to the Church's teachings) is always a judicial act that requires some sort of jurisdiction?

And, I suppose your larger point is that this is a line of criticism that the laity are not permitted to cross because it belongs only to those with jurisdiction to engage in this judicial act.

I disagree with your argument.  Those who point out that Francis is a heretic are not subjecting him to judicial penalty thereby.  If there were attempting to do so, they would be usurping the authority that comes with jurisdiction.  But, they are merely pointing out something definitional as the end result of the criticism.

For example, if I witnessed Person A murder Person B, I could judge that Person A is a murderer (let's assume that I also am aware that there are no affirmative defenses for the act that I witnessed).  Those with proper jurisdiction would, at some point, try Person A in order to obtain the penalty associated with his crime, but since I witnessed the act, I have the information necessary to make the judgment about his state of being a murderer, while I lack the jurisdiction to impose the punishment.
Reply
#44
Mr. Dmacabbes, are you pretending there's no intersection between « fellow Catholics » and mainstream culture ? In fact, orthodox Catholics are a minority. If you're worried to look good to mainstream Catholics, ergo, you're worried to look good for mainstream culture.

I never called anyone a heretic. As far as I can remember I haven't even called Kasper a heretic. I never even complained about the Pope's encyclical.

I'm very well within my rights, by the principle of subsidiarity, to not let my hypothetical children near Francis, because I perceive the man to be dangerous to the faith. Not because I hate the pope, but because everywhere I look its the same thing : people are getting confused. His affair with the Lutherans, by itself, is deeply scandalous. He is the first pope (well, maybe a bit during Paul VI's reign) where people are wondering « what will the Catholic Church teach about sex the next year ? ».

I don't see anything absurd with that. And yes, « complaining » does serve a purpose. It makes clear to our « fellow Catholics » that Catholicism is not a cynical game of spinning whatever the pope has said, that the pope can say stupid and even erroneous things, that he can be a dangerous person (why don't we hear the same complaints about Benedict IX or Alexander VI?).
In fact, if it weren't for trads calling out the wrong stuff, if instead we only had this sort of opus dei effeminacy, I myself would be Orthodox. It makes no sense to be part of a religion that changes according to the moods of a man.

Yes, the Church is a monarchy, but not a tyranny. I'll just leave this here, for the benefict of those who are, like Vox says, reading over our shoulders.
Reply
#45
I don't agree that follows. As a secular example, Jane Fonda's actions during the Vietnam war were certainly treasonous. She isn't a traitor, however, because a competent body never convicted her of that act (even if you and I would describe her that way).  Labeling her as such while talking to your progressive neighbor is simply going to get them to tune you out.  You may be "right", but you've lost any hope of converting them.
Reply
#46
I understand. You don't want people saying he's a heretic because that can only be claimed formally. You don't want anyone to be rude to him because of the office he holds. I understand completely. You're being very mature about this, more so than many.

What do you think of how Pope Francis has handled things thus far?
Reply
#47

What's being sought after in this thread are the terms "material heresy" and "formal heresy." It's akin to judging an act rather than a soul. The former is a question of fact; someone's either speaking heresy or he isn't. The latter goes to his inner world, which we cannot know and where it's for those with proper authority to determine.
Reply
#48
I’m glad to see this thread pop up as I’ve been meaning to send an email to Vox on this very topic, because I thought she might be interested to know the thoughts of peripheral member of the forum.

I’ve been reading this board regularly for a few years now, as I found it around the time I decided to become Catholic.  Although I cannot attend a TLM regularly, I love the Tradition and try to embrace and embody it as much as possible.  For me, and this may have something to do with my Protest-ant upbringing, I’m not especially attached to this or any other Pope.  I certainly do not feel, as someone expressed on this forum, that he would or could impede the growth of my faith.  That said, I do highly respect the Holy Father and have watched over time the tone of this forum turn terribly childish and snarky toward him.  Some of this picked up speed when a member began regularly (and almost exclusively) posting Remnant articles deriding the Holy Father.  My first thoughts of this continual peppering found it merely scandalous, gossipy tattling and my second being that if I wanted to read Remnant articles, then I’d simply go to their website. 

Next came the Pope vs. Trump escapade and I could not believe what I was hearing and reading.  I was not too surprised to hear conservative talk show hosts refer to him as ‘long nosed, socialist commie” but I was saddened to hear self-proclaimed, long-time Catholics call in to the shows and tell the whole world how disappointed they were in the Pope and how little the trusted him.  Hearing Catholics throw the Holy Father under the bus in front of the whole listening audience was sickening.  Oh how the anti-Catholic’s heart must have skipped a beat to hear this and how utterly crushed those who might have been considering joining the Church must have been to hear such divisiveness.  Such untold damage!  By and large this vehement reaction had less to do with defending Trump and more to do with the economic ideologies of those who booed and hissed at the Holy Father and anyone who stood in his corner.  The Holy Father’s much needed trip to Mexico was whittled down to an insidious sound bite and little to no word was uttered about his traveling to the (waning) Catholic county’s “Heart of Darkness”.  Here?  Here on his board the Pope was referred to as a “moron” and to my disbelief such an uncharitable, un-Catholic comment went unchecked. 

I had two thoughts about all of this kerfuffle.  First, the absolute outrage toward the Holy Father revealed to me how quickly and easily the secular world could turn on Catholics.  My second thought is that although you may quarrel or even punch your brother in the nose, you never, EVER allow someone else to do it.  That’s called being a family.  The Pope may have some stank on him but he’s OUR Holy Father and he should have never been called out by Catholics in front of the wolves.  Satan is the author of this division.

So what about all this?  Who am I to say, a newbie Catholic, and small time NO-er?  I say that Michael Voris was right (GASP!) when he said that such negative chitchat about the Holy Father is a detriment to young Catholics.  Although I’ve kind of figured out the game and the players, I will admit that at first it was difficult to wade through such scandalous chatter.  Criticism can be healthy but the non-stop chest beating that I often read is not. 

If this Pope is so difficult for us now, how on earth will we make it when the Tribulation is in full smack-down mode?  If this is insufferable how will we suffer when the stuff REALLY hits the fan?  What’s happening now, I’m afraid, is merely a cake wake.  And speaking of suffering… shouldn’t we be suffering this troublesome Pope and gladly?  Isn’t that the Traditional Catholicism that I’ve been reading about?  Where are the prayers and fasting and Mass intentions for this Pope?  Aren’t these tenants of Traditionalists? This Pope is good for the soul… if you know what I mean.

So those of the thoughts (flawed, I’m sure) of a long-time and probably not so much longer reader.  If you want to have a go at me, call me a modernist etc., etc. … go ahead.  I’ll let you know now that I have no interest or inclination for some long-winded, spittle flying, back and forth… it just won’t happen.  I’m way too busy to burn up hours trying to herd cats and really can’t stomach pi**ing matches. 

One very last thought…  please take a half hour of your time to listen this interview by Christine Niles with Charles Coulombe on how Our Father works through bad popes AND why and how Pope Francis ticks.  Well worth the listen.  It gave me great perspective on how to deal with our Holy Father.  (He laughs like John Candy!)



*** DISCLAIMER – please forgive spelling , grammar, and crabby tone as I typed this quickly and an hour past my bedtime ***

Chins up, Keep Your Powder Dry, Take Care, God Bless , Over and Out.

R&H
Reply
#49
You make a very good point, R&H. I've probably whined about Pope Francis far more than I should have. We should just face it, no amount of complaining will change the Popes mind, he's too stubborn anyway. We just need to continue to pray for him and to bear our annoyances patiently without turning into either schismatic toxic trads or whatever the opposite of that is. That's how you change a Papacy and earn peoples trust.

Of course that doesn't mean not correcting him when he's wrong either.
Reply
#50
(03-04-2016, 12:26 AM)Rattle-N-Hum Wrote: I’m glad to see this thread pop up as I’ve been meaning to send an email to Vox on this very topic, because I thought she might be interested to know the thoughts of peripheral member of the forum.

I’ve been reading this board regularly for a few years now, as I found it around the time I decided to become Catholic.  Although I cannot attend a TLM regularly, I love the Tradition and try to embrace and embody it as much as possible.  For me, and this may have something to do with my Protest-ant upbringing, I’m not especially attached to this or any other Pope.  I certainly do not feel, as someone expressed on this forum, that he would or could impede the growth of my faith.  That said, I do highly respect the Holy Father and have watched over time the tone of this forum turn terribly childish and snarky toward him.  Some of this picked up speed when a member began regularly (and almost exclusively) posting Remnant articles deriding the Holy Father.  My first thoughts of this continual peppering found it merely scandalous, gossipy tattling and my second being that if I wanted to read Remnant articles, then I’d simply go to their website. 

Next came the Pope vs. Trump escapade and I could not believe what I was hearing and reading.  I was not too surprised to hear conservative talk show hosts refer to him as ‘long nosed, socialist commie” but I was saddened to hear self-proclaimed, long-time Catholics call in to the shows and tell the whole world how disappointed they were in the Pope and how little the trusted him.  Hearing Catholics throw the Holy Father under the bus in front of the whole listening audience was sickening.  Oh how the anti-Catholic’s heart must have skipped a beat to hear this and how utterly crushed those who might have been considering joining the Church must have been to hear such divisiveness.  Such untold damage!  By and large this vehement reaction had less to do with defending Trump and more to do with the economic ideologies of those who booed and hissed at the Holy Father and anyone who stood in his corner.  The Holy Father’s much needed trip to Mexico was whittled down to an insidious sound bite and little to no word was uttered about his traveling to the (waning) Catholic county’s “Heart of Darkness”.  Here?  Here on his board the Pope was referred to as a “moron” and to my disbelief such an uncharitable, un-Catholic comment went unchecked. 

To me, it all comes down to tone and respect. If we don't set things straight, especially with those who are looking toward the Church, then we're being remiss. It's part of our jobs as Catholics to spread Church teaching, and if a Pope is saying something that goes against Church teaching, or if he says something that isn't Church teaching but is being treated as Church teaching, we have to clarify. 

-- But we have to do so with respect, without snark, with the idea in our minds and hearts that he is our Father (assuming we're not sedevacantists). When criticizing papal actions, we have to speak and write with that in mind (and I very much appreciate richgr's post about how when we talk about "criticizing the Pope," we have to have it in our heads that it's actions and not the Pope himself but his errors we're critizing -- and we have to make that attitude clear in how we express ourselves so as to not give scandal).

Also, as an aside, know that I don't -- I can't -- read every thread that's out there. And there's also the issue that people aren't posting enough, so if there's one guy out there who's pretty much the only person posting new things, and he's posting things you (or I) might not like, banning him means no one will be posting anything, which means a dead forum. Finally, there's the matter of where new posts that I might not agree with personally go. If it creates conversation, then it's to the good. If others set that poster straight or re-present things so they're not so 'ornery-sounding," then it's all to the good.

If you -- and others reading this -- want this place to have a different tone, then set it by posting. That's where forums get their tones: from the people who post.  Be the change you want to see.

All that said, I hope you don't let the one poster I think you're referring to make you leave. And know that, as the forum owner, there's no way to win. For every person who thinks I should be doing X, there's someone who says I should be doing -X. No matter what decisions are made, someone storms off mad. As things are right now, I just want people to post because this place is dying. With a grandson and outside work I have to do in order to eat, I just can't post as if it's a full-time job, which is what I used to do. As things are now, I'll take what I can get and hope that ensuing discussions following a post I might not agree with go well and explain things further.

Quote: I had two thoughts about all of this kerfuffle.  First, the absolute outrage toward the Holy Father revealed to me how quickly and easily the secular world could turn on Catholics.  My second thought is that although you may quarrel or even punch your brother in the nose, you never, EVER allow someone else to do it.  That’s called being a family.  The Pope may have some stank on him but he’s OUR Holy Father and he should have never been called out by Catholics in front of the wolves.  Satan is the author of this division.

I wouldn't sit idly by while someone punched my Dad in the nose, but I wouldn't be outraged if someone were to respectfully correct my Father if he were to say something that is factually incorrect. See the difference?

Quote:So what about all this?  Who am I to say, a newbie Catholic, and small time NO-er?  I say that Michael Voris was right (GASP!) when he said that such negative chitchat about the Holy Father is a detriment to young Catholics.  Although I’ve kind of figured out the game and the players, I will admit that at first it was difficult to wade through such scandalous chatter.  Criticism can be healthy but the non-stop chest beating that I often read is not. 

If this Pope is so difficult for us now, how on earth will we make it when the Tribulation is in full smack-down mode?  If this is insufferable how will we suffer when the stuff REALLY hits the fan?  What’s happening now, I’m afraid, is merely a cake wake.  And speaking of suffering… shouldn’t we be suffering this troublesome Pope and gladly?  Isn’t that the Traditional Catholicism that I’ve been reading about?  Where are the prayers and fasting and Mass intentions for this Pope?  Aren’t these tenants of Traditionalists? This Pope is good for the soul… if you know what I mean.

I beg of all new Catholics to separate out Catholicism from Catholics, to not take what some Catholics do as indicative of what the Church is and what She teaches. Same with Tradition. What Tradition is can be seen on this page: FE:Tradition  Ignore the toxic types and don't let them keep you away from Truth!

As to "suffering this troublesome Pope" "gladly":  unless we're sedevacantists, we obviously have to suffer him. "Gladly" isn't the word I'd use as an adverb to describe how, though. I'm not "glad" we have a troublesome Pope that is confusing the world -- even his own sheep. What he's doing isn't good. God will bring good out of it, but it's not good in se, and we can't do nothing and allow Catholic teaching to be skewed in the minds of weaker Catholics. But we have to suffer him with respect for his office and for him as a human being, and with trust in Christ's promise.

Quote:So those of the thoughts (flawed, I’m sure) of a long-time and probably not so much longer reader.  If you want to have a go at me, call me a modernist etc., etc. … go ahead.  I’ll let you know now that I have no interest or inclination for some long-winded, spittle flying, back and forth… it just won’t happen.  I’m way too busy to burn up hours trying to herd cats and really can’t stomach pi**ing matches. 

One very last thought…  please take a half hour of your time to listen this interview by Christine Niles with Charles Coulombe on how Our Father works through bad popes AND why and how Pope Francis ticks.  Well worth the listen.  It gave me great perspective on how to deal with our Holy Father.  (He laughs like John Candy!)

(video snipped_

*** DISCLAIMER – please forgive spelling , grammar, and crabby tone as I typed this quickly and an hour past my bedtime ***

Chins up, Keep Your Powder Dry, Take Care, God Bless , Over and Out.

R&H

I haven't watched the video yet, but absolutely agree that God works through all sorts of Popes. I maintain, though, that we have to call out error when we see it (and defend the Pope when the media twist his words, obviously). But I also absolutely believe that must only be done with prudence, respect, charity, without impugning his motives, without pretending as if we can read his mind, etc.

I don't think your unwillingness to criticize papal actions makes you a "modernist." That's not even close to the definition of "Modernism" (in fact, one of my pet peeves about the "toxic types" is how they abuse the word "Modernist." Grrrr!). But I do disagree with you that we shouldn't make sure the Truth about what the Church teaches is known. I just think we need to be a lot more careful and respectful in how we go about that.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)