Criticims of Hierarchy
#1
Vox Wrote:"What is your take on criticism of the Holy Father and of Bishops? Do you take a "ChurchMilitantTV view" that it's OK to criticize Bishops, but not the Pope? Or that it's OK to criticize either as long as respect is shown? Or --- ?"

Well, there are two major questions that have to be asked in every case - "what is my motivation for making a comment?" and "Is it True?" One should show respect as far as one can to anyone. But on the other hand, if someone is wearing a clown outfit visible to all, one does no one any service by ignoring it.
Reply
#2
...hello, Mr. Coulombe (If your title is, "Dr., then I apologize for not mentioning it)

Nice to see you here.

I'm a fan of you on your Facebook page.

I must admit that I've heard of you since 2011 or 2012 through an interview you gave to a Sedevacantist apostolate.
Reply
#3
Charles Coulombe Wrote:But on the other hand, if someone is wearing a clown outfit visible to all, one does no one any service by ignoring it.

Once again, I agree with you. I just read a comment on Facebook in which some guy said he won't vote for Trump because the Pope said he isn't Christian. Sigh.

Anyway, your response raises a follow-up question:  Do you think our Holy Father is metaphorically wearing  a clown outfit? Just a big red nose? The nose and the oversized shoes? None of the above? Or -- ?

Seriously, what do you think of this papacy?
Reply
#4
Are we talking about public criticisms of the hierarchy? because I think the rules would be different between friends.  Another question might be, "What are the likely effects of my comment, given audience x?"
Reply
#5
(07-27-2016, 09:04 AM)Acolyte Wrote: Are we talking about public criticisms of the hierarchy? because I think the rules would be different between friends.  Another question might be, "What are the likely effects of my comment, given audience x?"

In my opinion, it's a given that people talk differently with their friends and family than they do in the public sphere, and that's a good thing, a normal thing. A necessary thing even. The collapsing into each other of the public and private spheres is pretty -- hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for? "Unseemly," maybe.

But I think public criticism of public acts are fine assuming it's offered with charity, for a good purpose (serving to educate people about how every papal utterance isn't holy writ or wise, for ex.), and fairly (without impugning motives, using hyperbole, judging souls, etc.). When it comes to Pope Francis, I think sincere, orthodox Catholics owe it to the world -- and to Christ! -- to set things straight with regard to what is and isn't Catholic teaching, the different levels of the Magisterium, etc. If we don't, chaos will rule. We have to fight for Truth.
Reply
#6
(07-27-2016, 11:26 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ...When it comes to Pope Francis, I think sincere, orthodox Catholics owe it to the world -- and to Christ! -- to set things straight ... If we don't, chaos will rule. ...

Perhaps, but at what point does this undo, at least in the eyes of the public, the hierarchical order?  If it's up to the laity to set things straight, to set the Holy Father straight, then some might ask, what's the point of having a Supreme Pontiff?  How do we balance "the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church" (Can. 212) with "religious submission of the intellect and will" (Can. 752)?
Reply
#7
(08-06-2016, 12:24 PM)Acolyte Wrote:
(07-27-2016, 11:26 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ...When it comes to Pope Francis, I think sincere, orthodox Catholics owe it to the world -- and to Christ! -- to set things straight ... If we don't, chaos will rule. ...

Perhaps, but at what point does this undo, at least in the eyes of the public, the hierarchical order?  If it's up to the laity to set things straight, to set the Holy Father straight, then some might ask, what's the point of having a Supreme Pontiff?  How do we balance "the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church" (Can. 212) with "religious submission of the intellect and will" (Can. 752)?

The point of having a hierarchal order is to get things done, and the powers of each level have been outlined by Tradition. The fact is that not every papal uttterance is infallible. In fact, infallibility is so rarely exercised that you can count on one hand the number of times it has been exercised in the past 500 years.

The Pope's wanting Europe's borders flung wide open so millions of Muslims can take over does not "pertain to the good of the Church." It has the opposite effect. We submit our intellects to dogmas, not to every little thing a Pope or Bishop says.

I'd go even further and say that as far as "the eyes of the public" go, we'd be much better off presenting the true vision of religious assent and not an overblown view of the papacy that they can point to and call us "mindless Pope-worshipers" over. It's perfectly fine to dislike Fruity Pebbles even if that's the Pope's favorite cereal, if you get my drift. He's the Pope, not God Himself. He can be wrong about a million things.

The one thing he is protected from is pronouncing as dogma anything that contradicts past teaching. When he's consistent with Tradition, then hurray. When he's inconsistent with it, say while giving some impromptu interview on an airplane, we don't have to pretend he's right or try to defend that he's saying. We don't have to twist his words to mean what they don't mean. We DO have to treat his office with respect, not impugn his motives or otherwise engage in "mind-reading," give him the benefit of the doubt when it's possible to do so, etc. But we don't ever assent to error, and we don't have to agree with policies that don't touch on dogma and that will result in the destruction of Europe, the reception of the Faith, etc.
 
Reply
#8
(08-06-2016, 11:59 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-06-2016, 12:24 PM)Acolyte Wrote:
(07-27-2016, 11:26 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ...When it comes to Pope Francis, I think sincere, orthodox Catholics owe it to the world -- and to Christ! -- to set things straight ... If we don't, chaos will rule. ...

Perhaps, but at what point does this undo, at least in the eyes of the public, the hierarchical order?  If it's up to the laity to set things straight, to set the Holy Father straight, then some might ask, what's the point of having a Supreme Pontiff?  How do we balance "the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church" (Can. 212) with "religious submission of the intellect and will" (Can. 752)?

The point of having a hierarchal order is to get things done, and the powers of each level have been outlined by Tradition. The fact is that not every papal uttterance is infallible. In fact, infallibility is so rarely exercised that you can count on one hand the number of times it has been exercised in the past 500 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------snip-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a discussion on this board some time ago (last year, I believe) about papal infallibility and how many times it has been exercised.  There doesn't seem, afaik, to be any kind of definitive answer to that, though, some claiming, like you, that it has happened only a very, very few times while others claim it's happened many more than most people are even aware of.  Someone in that same discussion asked if, when canonizing a saint, the pope is making an infallible declaration.  The consensus was, iirc, that he was.  In that case, the number of times papal infallibility has been exercised has increased several hundred times.
Reply
#9
(08-07-2016, 02:01 PM)J Michael Wrote: There was a discussion on this board some time ago (last year, I believe) about papal infallibility and how many times it has been exercised.  There doesn't seem, afaik, to be any kind of definitive answer to that, though, some claiming, like you, that it has happened only a very, very few times while others claim it's happened many more than most people are even aware of.  Someone in that same discussion asked if, when canonizing a saint, the pope is making an infallible declaration.  The consensus was, iirc, that he was.  In that case, the number of times papal infallibility has been exercised has increased several hundred times.

Yeah, you're totally right about canonizations, so my bad. But I was referring to dogma and doctrine, to matters of Catholic teaching. In that sense, infallibility has only been exercised a very, very small number of times.

But all that aside, the idea that every time the Pope speaks, he speaks the Truth, and that everything he says must be defended has really got to die. And FAST. Good-willed neo-conservative types think they're doing the Church a favor by twisting themselves into knots defending nonsense, but they're doing the opposite. They're harming the cause while also making Catholics come off as what we've often erroneously been accused of being: Pope-worshipers, people who think the Pope is God Himself, etc. That is NOT Catholic teaching. Never was, never will be. So we've got to not feed that monster of a lie by defending the indefensible -- such as the Pope's idea that it's a great thing to allow Muslims to infiltrate Europe. It's disastrous! Call a a spade a spade, Catholics!
Reply
#10
The Pope needs a Vatican  planted subject changer among the media. Someone  who will systematically distract the Holy Father each time he begins to respond to a loaded question. When he sees Francis begin to respond to a question about the Muslims with that special glimmer in his eyes, he can bring up the weather.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)