Friday, October 31, 2014


Popes cannot change defined Church teachings, only clarify them or make doctrine what is already believed since the early Church. This is true of the moral law.

And Cardinal Wuerl has some encouraging words about the indissolubility of marriage as reported by EWTN HERE.

The Guardian out of GB has an interesting opinion piece by Andrew Brown. Press the title below to go to the link to read it. Personally, I doubt authentic Catholics would go into schism. We wait thinks out.  However, I do find Cardinal Pell's homily to traditionalists in Rome last week peculiar, very peculiar. Do you?

A Catholic church schism under Pope Francis isn’t out of the question


Anonymous said...

When will this nightmare of a papacy end. we now have a pope that has said "God is not a divine being". This man is so imprudent and arrogant and it is only getting worse. He speaks endlessly about the poor, removes a bishop because of his so called lavish lifestyle. Yet Cardinal Marx has his dream home in Rome, is spending millions to refit his chancery, all the German bishops are getting thousands of dollars a month, a MONTH, and Francis is silent. The word phony does come to mind. He is going to push the limit one day and boy is that fall going to be huge. It will happen.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Certainly your contempt and hatred of this pope, your calumny of him, quoting him out of context and overall nasty attitude constitute serious mortal sin. Let's see what is present to make it so:

1. serious matter: (hatred and calumny and misrepresenting the Holy Father's words, bearing false witness!

2. You are not stupid, so you know these are sins

3. You do it and in a public forum with full consent of the will.

Repent,go to confession and do your penance!

Gene said...

On the other hand, is it possible that this Pope, through his ambiguous statements and questionable behaviors, is tempting the faithful to fall? Can a Pope's actions be a near occasion for sin to the flock? Just saying'...

Anonymous said...

How is speaking the truth hatred and calumny?

1. Francis did say "God is not a divine being". It was all over the news.

2. Francis did remove a conservative German bishop because the liberal bishops started a public vendetta against him. Francis didn't even give the bishop the benefit of a canonical trial to defend himself, which Canon Law provides, ie. The bishop was denied justice.

3. Cardinal Marx does have a lavish home in Rome.

4. Cardinal Marx is spending millions to refit the bishops offices in Germany.

5. The German bishops do receive thousands of dollars, each, and monthly from the Church tax. And Francis has been silent on this.

6. He is pushing the limit. When everyday, simple believing Catholics hear that the pope is trying to allow people in objective mortal sin (divorced "remarried" Catholics) to receive communion without amendment of life and confession, they are a pope.

I'm not calling him he calls everyone he disagrees with on daily basis. I am pointing out exactly what he is saying and doing. I didn't say that God wasn't a divine being, Francis said that. He Said that. Not me, read the papers.

And who are you to judge me? A mortal sin. Do you mean the Church's official teaching on mortal sin or your personal teaching on "minor mortal sins" (which by the way is heresy). You Father might consider going to confession for publicly rationalizing errors against the Faith, which of course now makes you culpable for the scandal and the sin itself. You should know better.

JBS said...

Have you posted or linked Cardinal Pell's homily? I would like to read it.

Anonymous said...

I would not eavesdrop standing in proximity to a confessional where a penitent is confessing his sins. Obviously, that would be wrong. I wonder if it is right for me to "listen in on" (by viewing electronically)--or myself be subjected to--the attempted moral judgement and spiritual direction" of another internet soul. In any event, I would prefer to see his arguments challenged factually if they are suspect.

rcg said...

Andrew Brown came across as a bit disingenuous, misrepresenting Douthot to a not insignificant degree. The Henry XVIII comment is actually dissembling.

Many of us have endured years, decades, of incompetent if not heretical leadership from parish and diocesean leaders, it is not surprising it would eventually reach Rome. But in every case the priest was still Catholic and earnestly, if not intelligently, supports the "spirit" of the Church teachings. This devotion to emotion stripped of reason lead to dynamic equivalence translations, essentially Prtoestantism, and eventually, so the conservative or traditionalist might say, schism of the Church leadership from the Church.

So the question might be, Does the hierarchy define itself as the Church so that deviation from past teaching is irrelevant? Or is motion relative, and is it the professional clergy who actually moved from the objective center of teaching and doctrine?

Marc said...

Speaking the truth unnecessarily, in public, is detraction, not calumny.

As for misrepresenting the pope's words and message, I think this blog's author is more guilty than most on that score.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Pope Francis saying God is not a divine being--show me the complete speech and the context please or disavow it altogether. Relying only on hateful blogs and main stream media for your news?

Anonymous said...

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said to the few remaining heads left. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

That is what Francis said. "God is not a divine being" HE SAID THAT NOT ME. How is that out of context. The pope said "God is not a divine being". Now Father defend the statement "God is not a divine being". Let me guess.....the translation is wrong. When using Italian blah blah blah or yadda yadda yadda, which ever you prefer.

Rudy Zapata said...

Disagreement does not equal "hate". Surely we've learned that by now after seeing how the gay lobby has all but re-defined that word.

Pater Ignotus said...

The "god is not a divine being" is a reference to a report on Pope Francis' recent address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

That translation was inaccurate. It has been corrected to read: "“God is not a demigod or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

("divine being" has been changed to "demigod")

In the context of his remarks, even the "god is not a divine being" remark was not troubling since that context made it pretty obvious that he was speaking about a "demigod" or a "demiurge."

Pope Francis is not responsible for the intentional misinterpretations from malcontents and marplots who want to find "error" in what he says. They have been howling at the moon since he appeared on the balcony without a satin mozzetta.

They would complain if he recited the Constantinopolitan-Niceno Creed, in Greek and Latin, while wearing a mozzetta, pallium, triple tiara, maniple, fanon, gloves, buskins, and red Prada slippers.

JusadBellum said...

The best I can do with 'God is not a divine being....God is Creator' is to suggest that Pope Francis was trying to distinguish between man's conception of "gods" as beings in creation, vs. God as creator, as Being itself who is outside of creation.

It's a unique way to frame things and I suppose one could sorta-kinda- make the case with lots of caveats etc.

But off the cuff it comes out as contradictory and confusing.

So one must conclude that the Pope just misspoke. He's not a trained theological or philosophical scholar. We forget that there's a difference between someone with a degree and someone who TAUGHT that degree. Being able to pass a test and get a degree decades ago does not equip one to teach on those subjects decades later without a bit of refresher courses unless you've spent a lifetime using that degree.

All of which is to say, the Pope is not infallible in every casual remark he makes. So an error, goof, mistake made in a casual remark or homily does not obliterate the doctrine of Papal Infallibility or his charism of authority.

As with our pastors, as with our parents, they're capable of error without being reduced to an error. They may be corrected without dishonor so long as we continue to honor them as their station deserves.

I may disagree with say, Pater I over political choices, but he's still a priest and pastor and deserves respect as such. Indeed, if I respect him enough to argue then I should respect him enough to give honor where it's due and a priest (to say nothing of a bishop!) is owed great respect even when wrong about something.

Anonymous said...

I just discovered this blog, and it seems obvious that everyone here is passionate about their faith, with a true interest in fully defending it - as each understands it.
The beautiful thing about the Catholic faith is that it is so big, no one can truly comprehend all of it in their lifetime.
Perhaps God used each of His Popes to reveal a different teaching, in a different style to reach ALL of His children. That being said, I have to agree that I interpreted what Pope Francis said to mean that God is greater than a divine being. Angels are divine beings, God is omnipotent.
Sometimes fear makes us take things the wrong way. This is how Jesus's words were twisted by the Pharisees. Surely many of them believed they were defending their faith as well.
Peace be with you.

MR said...

I do think that the Card Wuerl quote is a big deal. He was one of the most important liberal players at the Synod, and he just said the remarried can't receive communion.

Anonymous said...

I wonder whether you've gone to far, PI. Who could possibly complain about a pope so humble as to subject himself to a triple tiara and red slippers?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I would agree that it would be true humility for this pope or any pope to submit to the trappings of the institution of the papacy ! I think on particular Pope Pius X!

Jdj said...

This is a fascinating discussion, and good points made by the follow-up commenters to the blog host and to Anon 7:09 AM. Responses to both parties were respectful and informative. Thanks.

I appreciate Henry's even, mediation tone (as always!), and Gene's respectful question that begs an answer. The new Anon 11:04 AM made a great comment--"...fear is the chief activator of all our faults".
I especially thank Marc for his bit of clarification. I know I have been guilty of detraction here (but NOT calumny to my knowledge) and I repent and make a firm purpose of amendment. It would be truly edifying once in awhile for all who comment to avoid the knee-jerk emotional/angry response and type the informative one as Pater and Jus did.
OK, soapbox gone. Again, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Because something is the truth, does that make it OK? If it's true that I like to think about ravishing that lovely woman in the pew ahead of me, is it OK?

Carol H. said...

Anon @ 12:20-

Only if you are her husband! ;)

Marc said...

To publicly reveal another person's sin is not "okay". There might be some legitimate reason to point out another's sin if it's done to correct some scandal, though.

At any rate, throughout Church history, it has always been necessary to point out and separate from heretics. Even St. Paul discusses this in his letters.

Anonymous said...

To split infinitives is also no "okay."

Marc said...

Anonymous, you are incorrect about the propriety of splitting infinitives. But, don't let that stop you from your attempted pomposity.

And if you're going to attempt to correct someone's grammar, you might want to proofread your critique to be sure you haven't made a silly error like using "no" in place of "not."

Anonymous said...

Only pompous people use the word "pomposity."

To, without clear thought, careful planning, and judicious consideration, split an infinitive leads to lack of clarity and, without warning, to the fallback of asserting the right to pompously use "pomposity."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Speaking of fallback don't forget to Sunday morning! To do so would be to be early for Mass

Marc said...

I'm sorry my comment forced you to consult a dictionary, Anonymous.

George said...

I'm late to this one. I'm glad that Pater Ignotus set the record straight. I know that the Holy Father has a way of speaking extemporanously and of saying things in a certain way that can be puzzling sometimes. I try to keep in mind that what he said was mis-translated. One interesting thing about this is that from the aspect of those who believed (or believe) in demigods( a being part human and part god), that to such a person this would describe Christ. Although as Catholics we accept that Christ is both FULLY human and FULLY Divine. One can be either fully God or not God at all. Also the use of this term becomes all the more interesting when considering that the Holy Father was addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. To some, science today has a certain demi-god like status. Beyond that, those of the Hindu faith who now have a greater prominence in the field of science do believe in demi-gods. Interesting.

Anonymous said...

Father PI
So Francis is being misrepresented by right wing saboteurs? Is that good news for the right wingers or the left wingers? Because if what you say is true it seems like liberal clergy stand to be the ones most “surprised” by Francis. I hope you’re right. Thanks for the providing hope. Mike