|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 28, 2016 21:29:32 GMT
I do not like criticising Pope Francis, because of his office, because of the responsibilities he bears, and because it is all too easy to be indignant without understanding what someone is trying to do. That said, I am afraid Pope Francis's recent suggestion that most Catholic marriages are actually invalid, and the subsequent row-backs, seemed to me remarkably ill-judged. I am afraid the Holy Father is sadly prone to shoot his mouth off. I'm inclined to agree that it wasn't though through as well as it could have been, though he certainly has a point when he says that many people commit to marriages without understanding the implications of what they are getting themselves into. But, as you say, it could have been worded more carefully.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 28, 2016 21:34:55 GMT
Oh, I agree that a lot of marriages today are probably invalid because of a lack of understanding that marriage involves permanence. I think our culture has been pretty thoroughly corrupted in that regard, but the statement went too far. Like I said, I am reluctant to go into too much depth on this because of the Francis Derangement Syndrome that seems to be consuming many trads. CHRISTIAN ORDER seems to actually hate him.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 29, 2016 21:22:35 GMT
I saw an interesting online comment about Pope Francis recently - unfortunately I can't recall where, if I find it I'll post it. The writer suggested that some of Pope Francis's apparent eccentricities reflect tendencies within the JEsuit Order which long pre-date the Council. Apparently Jesuit superiors are supposed to issue regular exhortations to their subordinates on how to improve themselves - the writer suggests that this is what Pope Francis is doing when he makes those statements which a lot of people see as name-calling and fault-finding. The writer also suggests that some of Pope Francis's apparently arbitrary statements and decisions reflect a traditional Jesuit tendency to see the hierarchical structures of the church and the authority of local bishops as obstacles to the pursuit of the mission. This suggestion makes a lot of sense to anyone familiar with English Catholic history. From the Reformation right up to the late C19 there were a lot of clashes between the secular clergy and the religious orders (particularly the Jesuits and Benedictines) over the claim of the orders to operate missions without subordination to the bishops. It only ended when the late C19 bishop of Salford appealed successfully to Rome against the attempt of the Jesuits to open a college in his diocese without his permission. This problem did not arise in Ireland because the national hierarchy survived and was able to assert authority over the friars (then the principal religious orders in Ireland) in the C18. The vicars apostolic in England did not have the same degree of authority as diocesan bishops, and the Benedictines (who claimed continuity with the pre-reformation English Benedictines) and the Jesuits always had an important role in the mission.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 30, 2016 8:56:53 GMT
It seems like an example of overthinking to me. Surely the weight of tradition in the Papacy would far outweight the prejudices of the Jesuit culture.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 4, 2016 22:27:33 GMT
Remember Pope Francis has been a Jesuit most of his life, and Pope for only 4 years. And we're talking about Jesuit formation, not just prejudices. Remember also that Papal styles vary quite a bit between individual Popes.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 3, 2017 20:42:41 GMT
As I said, I do not like to criticise Pop Francis very harshly, because of the respect due to his office and because his origins in Latin America will give him a different set of reference points which we may not always comprehend. That said, I am afraid that Austin Ivereigh's claim that he is ruling like a Peronist autocrat, using a sense of personal connection to the people to set aside laws and intermediate institutions, is proving all too accurate and is a much less positive development than Ivereigh seems to think. At the very least he has spread confusion among faithful Catholics, and lent his ear to some very problematic people in the Vatican bureaucracy. Phil Lawler's piece below is a very reasonable statement of the problem many people have with some of Pope Francis's actions. www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1199An example of a very unreasonable statement would be the Ianuary 2017 issue of CHRISTIAN ORDER, which published an article suggesting Pope Francis is a conscious agent of the Devil. I'm getting seriously worried that we may be heading for a new schism.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 3, 2017 21:16:20 GMT
It's a very worrying time. I don't understand why more Catholics are not more anxious and indeed seem to take little interest in the doctrinal controversy.
Yes, I have faith in our Lord's promise to St. Peter, but how much is left unsaid in that promise.
We need to pray very hard for Pope Francis and the hierarchy. I admit I have not prayed enough for them myself.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 3, 2017 21:33:39 GMT
As I said, I do not like to criticise Pop Francis very harshly, because of the respect due to his office and because his origins in Latin America will give him a different set of reference points which we may not always comprehend. That said, I am afraid that Austin Ivereigh's claim that he is ruling like a Peronist autocrat, using a sense of personal connection to the people to set aside laws and intermediate institutions, is proving all too accurate and is a much less positive development than Ivereigh seems to think. At the very least he has spread confusion among faithful Catholics, and lent his ear to some very problematic people in the Vatican bureaucracy. Phil Lawler's piece below is a very reasonable statement of the problem many people have with some of Pope Francis's actions. www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1199An example of a very unreasonable statement would be the Ianuary 2017 issue of CHRISTIAN ORDER, which published an article suggesting Pope Francis is a conscious agent of the Devil. I'm getting seriously worried that we may be heading for a new schism. I think that the current pontificate's shortcomings are more prudential than doctrinal IMHO. It is certainly extremely worrying to see whole episcopal conferences openly advocating Communion for the divorced and remarried without living as brother and sister. On the other hand, the CDF has upheld Church teaching on the matter, and it would hardly do so without the Pope's approval. It would be better of course, if Pope Francis himself said this, but it is not the absolute silence that one would believe if you only read some quarters, less still evidence of consent. I am extremely slow to believe that Amoris Latetia itself is heretical (as distinct from applications of it by quite a few bishops), because as it is an exercise of the Pope's magisterial authority, if it is, then Christ must have meant something else by His promise to Peter, thus disproving Catholicism. I must say I am not convinced by the analogies of Pope John XXII and St. Athanasius. In the case of the former, he was well within his rights to hold this opinion at the time, since the doctrine in question was not formally defined until after he had died. In any case, he only argued this as his personal opinion and not as Church teaching. Regarding the latter, Pope Liberius was not an Arian as is sometimes claimed, and though it could be argued that he could have done more to oppose them, this was a matter of tactical prudence.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 3, 2017 21:33:52 GMT
I think Edward Feser made the most penetrating comment about Pope Francis: that doctrine bores him. All his documents begin as wholehearted reaffirmations of Church doctrine in broad terms, and are often very eloquent, but then seem to throw it all into question when he turns to addressing pastoral practice or contemporary situations. One cannot help feeling that he doesn't see the unity between doctrine and pastoral practice.
But it's like the relationship of the mission statement of a business, and their business practice. If the mission statement doesn't align with their actual business practice, what's the point of it?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 3, 2017 21:38:41 GMT
Young Ireland, I think few people are actually arguing that Amoris is heretical. Even the famous footnote falls short of using the word "Eucharist"; it uses "sacraments" instead, which is of course uncontroversial in itself.
Has CDF actually officially made a statement on this matter, though? All I can find are off-the-cuff remarks by Cardinal Muller. What do you mean when you say Pope Francis's silence has not been as absolute as claimed?
As I understand it, Amoris is not an authoritative exercise of the Magisterium, being a post-synodal exhortation. I am open to correction on this.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 3, 2017 21:41:43 GMT
The most shocking part of the whole controversy, to me-- after the fact that bishop's conferences are promoting what seems like heresy-- is that so many Catholics who I assumed were "solid" on doctrine turn out not to be.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 3, 2017 21:54:27 GMT
Young Ireland, I think few people are actually arguing that Amoris is heretical. Even the famous footnote falls short of using the word "Eucharist"; it uses "sacraments" instead, which is of course uncontroversial in itself. Has CDF actually officially made a statement on this matter, though? All I can find are off-the-cuff remarks by Cardinal Muller. What do you mean when you say Pope Francis's silence has not been as absolute as claimed? As I understand it, Amoris is not an authoritative exercise of the Magisterium, being a post-synodal exhortation. I am open to correction on this. OK, if people believe Amrois is not heretical, then why are behaving as if it is? (For the record, I do have serious concerns with how it is being used to further people's agendas, but this is a different issue.) To me, it seems implausible that the Prefect of the CDF would make a statement on the matter without the approval of the Pope. This indirect clarification is what I mean by saying his silence has not been absolute. Even if it was not an authoritative exercise of the Magisterium, it is still an application of the Pope's teaching authority and thus tacitly protected from heresy.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 3, 2017 22:09:06 GMT
I think people see Amoris as dangerously ambiguous rather than heretical. Edward Feser argues quite convincingly that the Pope can be in error when not speaking ex cathedra.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 0:43:41 GMT
I think people see Amoris as dangerously ambiguous rather than heretical. Edward Feser argues quite convincingly that the Pope can be in error when not speaking ex cathedra. Indeed. I think Pope Francis's silence in response to the Dubia is telling. I like this pertinent quote from Catholic Answers: The Dubia sought clarification as to how the Pope's exhortation seemed to contradict the previous two Popes' on this matter. Either it was an intentional effort to correct doctrine, or an accidental oversight of previous Magisterial teachings. As the former would seem to preclude the latter, it's a fair conclusion that the lack of a formal reply could be an indication of the Petrine Office holding back from anything further that may be taken up as an infallible pronouncement. We can hope that perhaps this controversy has made the Pope himself aware of the powers and responsibility of his office in that regard. Pope Francis's strength has undoubtedly been in his demonstrative witness to the Gospel, for which we should always be thankful for.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 5, 2017 1:37:42 GMT
A very well-balanced post, Eirwatcher. It may also be the case that Pope Francis is taking the Roman law attitude (the legislator lays down the law as a general principle and allows for exceptions in practice, whereas common law is based on particular decisions which are expected to be enforced as a general rule) rather farther than is good. It's not a question of heresy (denying the principle) but of prudential iudgements which undermine it in practice.
CHRISTIAN ORDER's attitude quite frankly terrifies me. They are denouncing every post-Vatican II Pope without exception, and they are openly operating on the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them about anything is the worst sort of heretic and must be fought without quarter. That article by Louis Verrecchio which I mentioned was quoting Marian apparitions in a way which seemed to be hinting that he thinks Pope Francis is Antichrist. The whole magazine is suffused with rage and seems to me to display a schismatic, even a cultist mentality. It's a long way from Father Crane's days.
|
|