When Pope Benedict died, there were a few commentaries that the end of an era of had occurred. But in fact, that is not true, because Pope Francis is only 9 years younger than Pope Benedict and very much a part of that same era in the Church. What has died of that era is a pope who was a progressive, who in 1968, saw the errors of progressivism as it regards the Second Vatican Council and converted to a more middle of the road tending right approach, than what Cardinal Ratzinger had been.
Pope Francis, although ordained later but entering the Jesuits in the late 1950’s for its long formation process ending with his ordination in 1969, in the midst of the most radical aspect of implementing the Council, which Pope Benedict as Ratzinger had repudiated but Pope Francis as Bergoglio did not, but embraced and embraced the South American version of it, and a radical form of it, is still with us, banging that 1970’s drum, but not for very long I predict.
But my point is that we are still in the Benedict era as it concerns the papacy, the era of trying to implement Vatican II according to two main ideologies at play in the late 1960’s and well into the 70’s.
I can’t imagine we will get another Pope Benedict or Pope Francis as Pope Francis death will be the clear conclusion of the Benedict/Francis era with its schizophrenic approach to the Council.
I do pray, though that the battle between continuity and discontinuity will lean toward Pope Benedict’s remarkable life as a priest, bishop, cardinal and pope. I pray his legacy will last.
Pope Francis has said something to the effect that the German synodal way is becoming a Protestant denomination. He said, loosely quoting, we have one good Protestant Church in Germany, we don’t need another.
Under Francis, there is a Protestantizing of the Church, a balkanization of the Catholic Church, congregationalization of the Church, begun as a result of the ambiguities of interpretation of ambiguous Vatican II documents, but now on steroids due to the synodal process wildly out of control.
I doubt very much, that most cardinals, even those appointed by Pope Francis, want a continuation of the confusion, ambiguities and authoritarianism of Pope Francis’ imperial papacy. Time and eternity will tell.
67 comments:
Hopefully someone with a brain and a big heart, which would be a welcome change!
Evelyn Waugh, in 1958, recorded in his diary, and wrote to friends ( re Pope John XXIII)
“ I have a crush on the new pope. A most reliable looking man! And good for at least 20 years of placid inactivity….”
Hopfully not another "Holy mess maker": Cf. Pope Francis to 2013 Rio de Janeiro World Youth Day: "Hagen lio=Make a mess"!
Paul,
Interesting given his age at the time
Father McDonald, during the past month, you promoted the following articles published by New Catholic (Rorate Caeli):
-- The Death of Benedict XVI: The Failure of the Hermeneutic of Continuity"
by Côme de Prévigny
-- "Vatican II: Still Waiting to be Implemented?... -- A Comparison with the Reception of the Council of Trent" - by Côme de Prévigny
(By the way, "Côme de Prévigny" is an anonymous figure who has opposed Vatican II.)
Father McDonald, the articles in question have contradicted a great deal of that which you have promoted in regard to Pope Benedict XVI's connection to Vatican II.
Namely, the above articles have heaped upon Pope Benedict XVI, as compared to Pope Francis, far greater responsibility in regard to the following:
-- Joseph Ratzinger, via his role as an influential, Vatican II progressive peritus, helped to formulate supposed poisonous, destructive Conciliar texts, that have inflicted massive spiritual damage upon Holy Mother Church.
-- Joseph Ratzinger had thrown in with such destructive "progressives" as Rahner, Congar, Küng...and had served as liberal Cardinal Frings' "right-hand man."
-- Joseph never repudiated various poisonous, destructive, Conciliar texts.
-- Instead, Joseph Ratzinger had attempted to salvage the supposed unsalvageable Council via the following "false" narrative:
There were two "Councils":
-- The false, destructive, nevertheless pervasive "Council of the media."
-- The supposed less prevalent, but real Council, which, where implemented, had blessed the Church.
Côme de Prévigny noted that contrary to Joseph Ratzinger's supposed false narrative in question: Rome, and the bishops, rather than the media, interpreted, then implemented, Vatican II.
The above articles insisted that the problem with Vatican II is the Council itself. The Council is a supposed unsalvageable concoction of spiritual poison.
Joseph Ratzinger, for 60 years (1962 A.D. to 2022 A.D.), had, in various capacities, served as the Church's premier defender, as well as promoter, of the supposed destructive Council.
Therefore, Father McDonald, should we accept as valid Côme de Prévigny's claims in question:
Joseph Ratzinger, as compared to Pope Francis, or, just about anybody, had inflicted far greater spiritual damage upon the Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
A major barf alert (including lies) has arrived!
I would expect no less from leftwinger Mark Thomas who still has not apologizing for lying about Father McDonald’s statement. Mark Thomas real men apologize when they are wrong
Fr. Gerald Murray, agrees with you Fr. McDonald:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2023/02/18/pope-francis-must-stop-the-madness/
Catechist Kev,
That was an excellent article. Thanks for posting the link
As God is in control of His Church, we will receive the Pope our Heavenly Father has raised to teach, govern, and sanctify His Holy People.
That is good enough for me.
We can rest assured as thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, the Vicar of Christ will always exercise the error-free Papal Magisterium.
Anyway, should I live to see a new Pope, I will follow holy, and great, Pope Benedict XVI's tremendous example:
In line with Pope Saint Pius X's exhortation to love, and obey, the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, during his 2013 A.D. farewell ceremony, declared:
"Among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is the future pope, to whom I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience."
That is the Catholic Way. That is the holy Pope Benedict XVI way.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."What has died of that era is a pope who was a progressive, who in 1968, saw the errors of progressivism as it regards the Second Vatican Council and converted to a more middle of the road tending right approach, than what Cardinal Ratzinger had been."
Pope Emeritus insisted via interviews that he had always maintained his progressive stance in regard to the radical reforms that he had pursued at the Council.
Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict XVI's definitive biographer, is among many folks who have dismissed the claim that there had been two Joseph Ratzingers — the pre-1968 A.D. radical, versus, the post-1968 A.D. conservative Joseph Ratzinger.
National Catholic Register, May 28, 2020 A.D.
Edward Pentin: "You’ve known Benedict for many years, but when you wrote this book and from the interviews you had with the pope emeritus, what did you learn about him that you did not know before?"
Peter Seewald: "Oh, countless things. The life of Joseph Ratzinger is the biography of a century."
"Pure legend, however, is the story of his “trauma” during the student revolt in Tübingen [in 1968], or the story of his turn from revolutionary to reactionary brakeman."
=================================================================================
Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger's great friend: Interview with Angelo Scola, 30 Giorni, November 1985, p. 16.
Angelo Scola had offered that then-Cardinal Ratzinger had changed from a progressive to conservative.
Father Hans von Balthasar:
"I have known him for a long time, since he was a professor, and I can assure you that he did not change. Everyone says the opposite, that there are two Ratzingers: one before he came to Rome, and a different one later. To the contrary, he has always remained the same!"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Thank you, TJM.
Please do not stop posting here. Love reading your comments. 😀
Mark Thomas,
So the Borgia’s and the Medici’s are fine with you? A direct answer to that question and an apology to Father McDonald would be fitting
Mark,
As early as 1968, 1968!, Pope Paul VI was already protesting publicly at the already established practice of invoking Vatican II, invoking THE Council to justify dangerous and even reckless “Spirit of Vat2” interpretations of Council documents.
Who gets to define and explain what the “Spirit of Vat 2” actually is? Those who choose to regard, interpret (and preach and teach) the EVENT of Vatican II as meaning a lot of traditional Catholic beliefs and practices are now theologically outdated and/or “legalistic, Jansenistic nonsense”, or arose in an era, us enlightened moderns now regard as, “theologically bankrupt”.
That may have been the understanding of the “Spirit of Vatican 2” of a small number of theological experts/advisers who the secular media gave a lot of attention to, and got appointments to some key commissions to interpret and implement Vat2, but I honestly believe the vast majority of Catholics bishops and Catholic lay people around the world, c. 1965-85, would have preferred Vatican 2 to be regarded and interpreted as a blueprint for moderate, sensible reform and NOT as a blueprint or call for revolutionary change.
Mark,
As early as 1968, 1968!, Pope Paul VI was already protesting publicly at the already established practice of invoking Vatican II, invoking THE Council to justify dangerous and even reckless “Spirit of Vat2” interpretations of Council documents.
Who gets to define and explain what the “Spirit of Vat 2” actually is? Those who choose to regard, interpret (and preach and teach) the EVENT of Vatican II as meaning a lot of traditional Catholic beliefs and practices are now theologically outdated and/or “legalistic, Jansenistic nonsense”, or arose in an era, us enlightened moderns now regard as, “theologically bankrupt”.
That may have been the understanding of the “Spirit of Vatican 2” of a small number of theological experts/advisers who the secular media gave a lot of attention to, and got appointments to some key commissions to interpret and implement Vat2, but I honestly believe the vast majority of Catholics bishops and Catholic lay people around the world, c. 1965-85, would have preferred Vatican 2 to be regarded and interpreted as a blueprint for moderate, sensible reform and NOT as a blueprint or call for revolutionary change.
Mark,
Did Vatican 2 teach or even imply the following:
“…..ALL morality involves encounter with the other person; in measuring the morality of our acts, recourse to absolute standards - whether derived from revealed code or natural law - is often impossible.”
Was that a Vatican 2 teaching? or the belief/theological opinion of Fr J H Walgrave OP ?
Was it taught or implied by Vatican 2 that traditional Church teaching on sexual morality, and even Paul VI’s declaration concerning sexual ethics in 1976, was in fact “theologically inaccurate, psychologically harmful and pedagogically counterproductive” ?
Or was that the belief or opinion of Fr C Curran?
It is no wonder that the late Michael Davies wrote that in some important sense Vatican 2 was NOT a Council of Catholic bishops 1962-65 but soon became THE Council of often radical periti - certain “expert theologians”.
Was it possible that the majority of Catholic bishops in the early 60s ( or theologians like Fr H Kung and Fr Schillebeeckx ?) wanted the near total overthrow of Pius X’s encyclicals and, especially, the ditching of the more recent Pius XII encyclical Humani Generis and the near triumph of “historicism” to an extent that 2 generations of young Catholic students and seminarians would be taught that:
- the Church’s doctrinal formulas are not immutable in themselves but historically conditioned answers given by the Church at particular moments and particular eras in the past to questions raised in those eras…
- a strong emphasis on “the inadequacy of every era to define truth for future eras”
- a strong emphasis on “revelation as a personal self-disclosure by which God encounters the total person and communicates with him in a historical dialogue” AND therefore, “ NO formula of faith can exhaust the truth; it can be exchanged for another more meaningful to the contemporary mind” especially how we suddenly enlightened moderns can recognise “ the social, historical and non conceptual forces which impinged on the process by which past dogmas developed…..”
The above, and much more….was that really what the Catholic bishops in 1962-65 were voting for …..OR was that the Council, as an EVENT interpreted and taught by Kung and Curran et al and other influential, often radical, theologians?
Mark,
After that intense rave, I'll share a few jokes with you, that you might not have heard, and I think, His Holiness, Pope Francis, as a Jesuit, might appreciate too:
A man walks up to a Franciscan and Jesuit and asked "How many novenas must you say to get a Mercedes-Benz?"
The Franciscan asked "What's a Mercedes-Benz?"
The Jesuit asked "What's a novena?".
Two men considering a religious vocation were having a conversation.
"What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?" the one asked.
The second replied "Well, they were both founded by Spaniards - St Dominic for the Dominicans, and St Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were both founded to combat heresy - the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants."
"What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?"
"Met any Albigensians lately?".
Finally, two young Jesuit novices from poor large families in a poor village in western Ireland arrive in Dublin for the first time and enter a Dublin city Jesuit dining room for the first time.
One says to the other "if this is poverty, I can't wait to see chastity!".
The next pope will be much more progressive than Francis and wil complete what he started. We will have no Mass but the NO, openly homosexual priests and priestesses and doubt of the Presence in the Eucharist.
Paul,
Mark Thomas can’t even apologize for lying about Father McDonald’s statement, so I would not expect anything. He makes a habit of ignoring solid facts which undermine his delusions. He is contumaciously ineducable
I dare say that whoever is chosen at the next conclave, it will be done with a great deal of thought. It will probably reflect on the experiences of the past with a view to improving both the process and selection among the papabilla. Should be interesting.
For the benefit and consideration of Mark Pax Thomas Esq:
While I am strongly convinced our next pope will make Hans Kung look like Pius X, at some point, we will likely get the Great Pontiff who will restore the greatness of the Church that has been prophesied to follow the chastisements to come (let me adjust my tin foil hat).
That said, Mark, just consider this "what if" situation:
What if we get a pope who definitively denounces synodality as its being practiced, erases the Novus Ordo the way Coke erased New Coke and scuttles all the rest of Pope Francis' initiatives? Actually, that's not the question. The question is, will you follow, obey, praise and fawn all over such a pope in the same manner that you slavishly make obeisance to our current pontiff of questionably canonically valid election?
I think this deserves an answer.
Paul,
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you for your humor. Good jokes!
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jerome Merwick,
Alas since Mark Thomas lies about Father McDonald’s statements and refuses to apologize for it, he will never respond to you. I won’t get into armchair phycology but I suspect he has some issues which render him incapable of apologizing or answering an honest, direct question. As an educator I am certain you have some theories about what is happening there
Jerome Merwick said..."The question is, will you follow, obey, praise and fawn all over such a pope in the same manner that you slavishly make obeisance to our current pontiff of questionably canonically valid election?"
Mister Merwick, peace and good health to you, and your family. .
I will try again to converse with you in peaceful fashion.
Mister Merwick, I adhere to the Church's teachings in regard to the Papacy.
I stand with Pope Benedict XVI who, during his 2013 A.D. farewell ceremony, declared to the Cardinals:
"Among you there is the future pope, to whom I today declare my unconditional reverence and obedience."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
pueblosw@gmail.com said..."I dare say that whoever is chosen at the next conclave, it will be done with a great deal of thought."
During his 2013 A.D. farewell ceremony, Pope Benedict XVI said to the Cardinals:
"I will continue to be close to you in prayer, especially in the next few days, so that you are fully accepting of the action of the Holy Spirit in the election of the new pope. May the Lord show you what he wants."
At the next Conclave, the Holy Ghost will speak to our holy Cardinals in regard to the election of a Pope.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
Your words are meaningless since you have no problem with lying about Father McDonald. You should be embarrassed to continue to post here until you apologize to him
I have good hope that God in His mercy will not thrust that burden on me! :-)
"I stand with Pope Benedict XVI who, during his 2013 A.D. farewell ceremony, declared to the Cardinals:
"'Among you there is the future pope, to whom I today declare my unconditional reverence and obedience.'"
While those are certainly lovely sentiments in a time of uninterrupted faith (and this is no such time), one can't help but wonder how "obedient" our beloved Pope Ratzinger really had to be. What did he have to "obey" from his successor--aside from staying locked up in his compound?
There wasn't much to "obey" after Traditiones Custodes scuttled the crowning achievement of Ratzinger's papacy. All he could do was weep.
So let us pretend that those words came from another pope, say, Innocent VIII. It is 1492 and instead of dying, he retires and a successor is elected. I guess you and Innocent would have to stand in perfect obedience to Pope Alexander VI. I'll save you the trouble of looking him up. His real name was Rodrigo Borgia.
Oh those Holy, Holy, Holy popes! Ask no questions, turn off your critical thinking capacity and just obey!
Jerome Merwick said..."While those are certainly lovely sentiments in a time of uninterrupted faith (and this is no such time)..."
Thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, from Saint Peter to Pope Francis, he or she who has remained in communion with the Pope(s) of his, or her time, has held the Faith...the uninterrupted Faith.
Holy Mother Church has guaranteed that, again, thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Religion has remained immaculate in the Apostolic See.
Today, our True God has commanded us to obey Pope Francis.
Therefore, Mr. Merwick, with thanks, and pleasure, I will do that.
Thank you.
Jerome,
I don’t know why almost all Catholics’ favourite bad pope is Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI.
I don’t know why the famous or infamous “Boy-Pope”, Benedict IX, is not better known. Some historians claim he was as young as 13 or 14 at his election in 1032; others claim, no older than 19. In 1032, Pope John XIX of the House of Tusculum had died, and Count Alberic III paid a fortune (ie bribery) to keep the job in the family - who better to fill the vacancy than his own son Theophylactus?
According to Monsignor Louis Duchesne, Benedict IX was a “mere urchin…..who was before long to become actively offensive.” St Peter Damian, a fine judge of sin, exclaimed: “That wretch, from the beginning of his pontificate to the end of his life, feasted on immortality.” He was the first pope believed to have been primarily homosexual. Pope Victor III wrote of “his rapes…..and other unspeakable acts of violence and sodomy….his life as a pope was so vile, so foul….that I shudder to think of it..” Also, Benedict IX is the only person to have been Pope on more than one occasion and the only person to have ever sold the papacy.
To be fair, the great British historian, R L Poole d. 1939 suggests that some of the accusations directed against him were made by political enemies, but Poole wrote “Benedict IX was a negligent pope, and very likely a profligate man”…
At one stage, Benedict IX wanted to resign, he demanded a golden handshake of 1,500 pounds in weight. After a bout of hard bargaining, he settled for the whole of Peter’s Pence from England. No collection by English Catholics was put to better use - Benedict said he had merely recovered his father’s original expenditure. Later Benedict attempted a comeback, and after the intervention of the Holy Roman Emperor he was at first forced to resign ….but after later jumping on the papal throne for 8 months, pressure from a devout emperor led Benedict to retire to the monastery of Grotta Ferrara where, it was said with a certain ambiguity, his life was an example to the rest of the community.
I like how in Eamon Duffy’s “Saints and Sinners - a history of the Popes” he states that after a whole dark century for the papacy, the reform begun at the great monastery of Cluny really started to flourish, and Benedict IX was soon followed by Clement II, Damasus II, Leo IX, especially, and Victor II - good popes committed to real reform and renewal - they aspired and seriously strove to recover the purity of early Christian Rome.
Wikipedia has a good page on Benedict IX - but the Cambridge historian, Eamon Duffy’s book on the papacy is better and more balanced.
Mark blind obedience would make the Catholic Church and her pope a cult, like Jim Jones outfit so long ago. We do not owe anyone in the hierarchical church, no one, no priest, no person, no parent, blind obedience. You have entered heresy now.
If Pope Francis chooses to go the route of the Anglican Church and its heresies, then so be it. Do I have to personally obey him? No. I can be a disobedient Catholic in terms of the wrong teachings of a pope, and there have been these throughout history and corrections later. I must be obedient to defined truth, dogmas and doctrines, natural law. New things that oppose these do not require obedience. In fact God requires the opposite. Many saints are examples of this to include dying for the true faith.
Jerome Merwick said..."There wasn't much to "obey" after Traditiones Custodes scuttled the crowning achievement of Ratzinger's papacy."
Actually, many bishops had, upon its issuance, scuttled Summorum Pontificum. Said bishops, at best, had paid mere lip-service to Pope Benedict XVI's supposed "crowning achievement."
From there, many "traditionalists" had scuttled Pope Benedict XVI's "crowning achievement."
Many "Traditionalists" rejected/denounced Summorum Pontificum as a dreadful document that contained supposed "lies" that had been concocted to achieve that which said folks had long rejected: The peaceful coexistence of the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, as well as the TLM.
For example, Peter Kwasniewski, who has long enjoyed a substantial following among trads, as well as many commenters here, declared:
"Thus, we can see that Summorum Pontificum contains profound tensions within itself, inasmuch as it reflects and reinforces certain false principles of ecclesiology and liturgy that led to the very crisis to which it was a partial response."
"In fact, it would not be too much to say that there are fictions, even lies, in the document."
"This, then, is the fundamental problem with Summorum Pontificum: it is internally incoherent, founded on a monumental contradiction caused by the worst abuse of papal power in the history of the Church."
"After its Prologue and Article 1, the remainder of Summorum Pontificum subtly holds the traditional liturgy hostage, or gives it, as it were, second-class citizenship."
That is Pope Benedict XVI's "crowning achievement?"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."Mark blind obedience would make the Catholic Church and her pope a cult, like Jim Jones outfit so long ago. We do not owe anyone in the hierarchical church, no one, no priest, no person, no parent, blind obedience. You have entered heresy now. If Pope Francis chooses to go the route of the Anglican Church and its heresies, then so be it"
Father McDonald I, of course, have not entered into "heresy."
Instead I, of course, have "entered" into that which Pope Benedict XVI had declared to his successor (Pope Francis):
"Among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is the future pope, to whom I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience."
"Unconditional reverence and obedience..." "Unconditional."
Father McDonald, thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, it is impossible that Pope Francis could teach error, let alone heresy.
The Papal Magisterium cannot fail.
Father McDonald, even though we disagree in regard to the issue at hand, as always, I thank you for your reply.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark blind obedience is the most evil form of clericalism at at the root of bishops and priests who have sexually abused minors and.vulnerable adults. It opens the blind to spiritual and moral abuse. I don’t know if you are vulnerable or not, but your advocacy for blind obedience concernsme and yes, blind obedience is heretical and offends Faith and reason.
Mark,
Paul VI, as a young man, wrote of history as the teacher of life.
History teaches or testifies against the glorification of any individual papacy.
The “Magisterium” of any individual pope is not above the word of God - that is probably the best interpretation of both Vatican 1 and Vatican 2.
PGK.
Father McDonald, you said that "blind obedience would make the Catholic Church and her pope a cult..."
Talk about "blind obedience."
Pope Benedict XVI had promised his "unconditional reverence and obedience" to his then-unknown (to mankind) successor.
"Unconditional." To his successor. Unknown then to Pope Benedict XVI.
Nevertheless, Pope Benedict XVI had promised to his then-unknown successor "unconditional reverence and obedience."
That is the definition of "blind obedience.".
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bravo Father McDonald, bravo! Truer words have not been spoken.
Given the history of the papacy (and its "development" through VC1 and VC2 until its praxis today) there are those in the Church who have accepted papalotry and are members of a qq cult.
Acceptance of hyperpapalism, neo ultramontanism, dictatorial leadership, confusion on the truths of the Faith are all ecclesial signs of papalotry as a cult within the Church. "I stand with Peter." Does not mean acceptance of every idiosy done or uttered by this pope or any pope.
It is sad to hear priests stating "I am a John Paul priest." or "I am a Pope Benedict priest."
Um, no, "I am a priest of Jesus Christ. Him alone will I serve."
"I belong to Apollos or to Cephus or to Paul" The Apostle rightly condemned these attitudes.
A pope must be remembered in prayer by the faithful, treated with the respect due his office and not be ravaged by those who think him "overboard."
We know it was the laity and lower clergy during the rise of the Arian heresy who were the ones who kept the Apostolic Tradition of the Church intact. This was done in the face of most of the bishops who denied the Lord's divine humanity.
So now as then those who do not follow the way of the heresy of papalotry must (to quote Fr. Mc Donald) "...be obedient to defined truth, dogmas and doctrines, natural law of the Church."
Faithfulness to these things defines those who keep the Apostolic Tradition and live it.
Back to the original post. Who will be the next pope?
(A btw and a personal note - 2 years ago I received a cancer diagnosis, and also inherited substantial $$ - so in my early 60s, with early retirement, after $$ to my wife, children and Christian charities etc I have, for the first time in my life, an account with a large gambling/ betting organisation - to have some fun betting on anything from football games to the results of political elections - and last year actually made a small profit)
Odds for next Pope:
Tagle 5/1
Turkson 6/1
Scola 6/1
Ouellet 7/1
Schonborn 8/1
Dolan 12/1
Sarah 12/1
Ravasi 14/1
Marx (God help us) 14/1
Erdo 16/1.
I have a friend and neighbour who says Cardinal Arthur Roche has recently appeared in the betting markets on his betting/gambling account.
God help us all!
Roche, Marx, Dolan et al with a chance at the next conclave!
Cardinal Robert Sarah for me.
Paul said...Mark...The “Magisterium” of any individual pope is not above the word of God - that is probably the best interpretation of both Vatican 1 and Vatican 2."
Paul, I appreciate your reply.
Paul, you are correct that Pope is not above the Word of God. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
-- The Magisterium "is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant."
Also from the CCC:
#100: "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."
Paul, God has empowered Pope Francis, as well as bishops in communion with Pope Francis, to pronounce authoritatively upon the Word of God.
It is only via Pope Francis, as well as bishops in communion with our august Pope, that we receive the authentic interpretation of the Word of God.
Paul, thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Paul said..."A btw and a personal note - 2 years ago I received a cancer diagnosis, and also inherited substantial $$ - so in my early 60s, with early retirement, after $$ to my wife, children..."
Substantial $$?
Paul, could you send me some... Did I say, "Paul?" Sorry, my mistake.
I had meant..."Daddy."
"Daddy, could you send me some..."
:-)
=====================================================================
Paul, I pray that you have been healed of the cancer...or will be healed of cancer.
May God grant you, and your family, many happy, and blessed, years.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Paul said..."Cardinal Robert Sarah for me."
Paul, are you sure that, considering the following, you would welcome Cardinal Sarah as Pope?
October 7, 2019 A.D.
"The truth is that the Church is represented on earth by the vicar of Christ, that is by the Pope. And whoever is against the Pope is, ipso facto, outside the Church."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
A LONG time ago, I studied history, philosophy, scripture etc at both a large secular university and a Catholic seminary; a long time ago. Over the past few years I have had the time to reread a number of texts and follow a number of Catholic blogs and websites like this one.
I am fully aware I do not have and will never have a tenth of the knowledge of a Fr Hunwicke, for example, and of course I’d be lucky to ever have 1% of the theological insight of a great thinker like Cardinal Newman - but I have followed and attempted to understand Fr Hunwicke’s understanding of Cardinal Newman’s thoughts re there can be times when the teaching authority of the Church (while not really ceasing to exist) can go into a sort of period of suspense - the Arian crisis being the classic case …….- for example: a very important Father, Hilary of Poitiers, accused Pope Liberius (d 366) of apostasy during the Arian crisis - and many orthodox Catholic bishops agreed with Hilary. A teaching or at least a strong view of Pope Gelasius I was later condemned by the Council of Trent. Pope Vigilius changed his mind on important theological matters as often as the Emperor Justinian put pressure on him - and it took the next Pope, Pelagius I, to clear up the mess. The Sixth General Council in 680 and later Pope Leo II condemned Pope Honorius d. 638 for heresy and undermining the faith…..I could go on. In 1332-33 Pope John XXII made some serious theological blunders re the souls of the saints having a vision of God, his successor Pope Benedict XII corrected his mistakes.
A good more modern example, Pius XII and Vatican theologians in 1939 basically condemned a great mistake of Clement XI. Pius XII correctly taught (unlike Clement XI) that there was nothing blasphemous or un-Christian in Chinese rites, where they paid respect to their ancestors.
Protestant scholars have stated that history testifies against the glorification of the papacy.
I disagree with that.
There have been many great, wise popes.
But I think history teaches it is unwise to glorify any ongoing individual papacy, or perhaps (in difficult times like ours) it is probably unwise to glorify any recent papacy.
I think it would be a much safer bet (theologically) for any Catholic today to focus on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; and Paul’s Letters; AND, importantly, the Baltimore or Green/Penny Catechism - than the latest from the Vatican and especially the latest from Cardinals Marx, Roche, Cupich et al…and perhaps never spend more time daily online with Catholic blogs, articles etc…..than the amount of time one spends each day in prayer.
Mark,
I'm sorry but none of the $$ I inherited can be sent your way....or to anyone in the USA or anywhere in the West.
My focus now, and for the foreseeable future is to send as much as I can to a Christian charity in Kenya, Africa.... population 52 million - 33 per cent Catholic ..... 40 per cent of people in Kenya have no access to clean water - 37 per cent of people there live on less than $1.90 a day - many have still never been taught to read....AND only 18 per cent of Kenyans have access to the internet; 82 per cent of Kenyans have NO access to the internet....
As Thomas Sowell has said, the so called "poor" in the USA are almost all middle class, even upper middle class by the standards of people in most of central and south America - and wealthy by the standards of most Africans.
Paul, I appreciate your charitable spirit.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Finally, Mark, I know you were joking about sending $$ your way; or I am 99 per cent certain you were joking…
But, seriously, Mark, you are not unintelligent,…..re Cardinal Sarah, of course, he or any Cardinal will make such public statements about the papacy; but a Cardinal like Sarah knows the history of the Church and the papacy (including all the historical events referred to above, and MUCH more) and should Cardinal Sarah, or someone similar, become pope in the near future, I and others believe he would have a much more orthodox and genuinely traditional understanding of (and teaching on) the liturgy, Mass, Christian morality and the correct interpretation of Vatican II …than those other cardinals listed above…..it is likely or at least possible that a pope in the next 50 to 100 years will merely repeat in a future apostolic letter the basics of Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum , and hopefully, abrogate or at least politely ignore Traditionis custodes….
It is said the Catholic Church thinks in centuries.
I think it possible several centuries from now a history of the Catholic Church could have, say, a chapter on the Arian crisis, a chapter on the Protestant Reformation and Catholic counter-reformation….etc….and, say, 2 chapters on the Modernist Crisis - part 1 1890-1910; and the Modernist Crisis part 2, circa 1970 to (say) c. 2040….?
What do you think?
Stranger, much stranger, things have happened in Church history!
Paul said..."But I think history teaches it is unwise to glorify any ongoing individual papacy, or perhaps (in difficult times like ours) it is probably unwise to glorify any recent papacy."
Paul, I am not certain as to what the "glorification" of the Papacy, whatever that means, has to do with the following:
I am talking about that which Holy Mother Church has taught in regard to the Papacy.
Holy Mother Church has guaranteed that thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, the Papal Magisterium has never fallen into error...will never fall into error.
The Church has assured us that the Apostolic See has always preserved the Catholic Religion immaculate.
I will leave you with the following from Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Casti Connubii:
"...a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
Paul, thank you.
Mark Thomas
"Unconditional Obedience".
How that phrase has enthralled some of us! But what DOES it mean. I was always taught as a Catholic, that while we owed Jesus Christ unconditional obedience through his Church, WE DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY DISOBEDIENCE. More specifically, many saints, not the least, St. Robert Bellarmine, have spoken about our obligation--OUR OBLIGATION to stand in opposition to any Church authority who preaches a false doctrine or introduces some new Gospel (Environmentalism, Synodality, Universal Forgiveness Without Repentance, to name just a few of the trendier lies of our time). In fact, Bellarmine told us that when a Pope becomes a heretic, he ceases to be pope--in fact he ceases to be a Christian. And what is a heretic? A baptized Catholic who remains in obstinate denial of a Church doctrine.
I think most Catholics would be very reluctant to judge their pope as a heretic, however most Catholics who know their faith to a reasonable degree would also be able to tell for themselves whether or not their pope "passes the test". For example, Bishop Paprocki, whose Catholics sense I trust far more than most bishops, certainly has no problem recognizing Cardinal McElroy's demands that the Catechism be changed to accomodate certain sins as heresy.
No, I'm not qualified to make such a judgment, but if any Catholic ever was in my lifetime, it would have been good Pope Ratzinger, the Pope of Christian Unity. And, if in his common sense, he judged his successor to be in such obstinate denial, then good Pope Benedict would have easily realized that such a successor had ceased to be a pope, and, thus, was no longer a successor and certainly not owed one ounce of obedience.
I think that solves the problem. Then again, what do I know? I'm just a dumb Catholic.
"Unconditional Obedience".
"But what DOES it mean."
Mister Merwick, in regard to the Pope, Holy Mother Church has answered the above question.
Countless examples...where to begin?
-- In regard to the Pope, and bishops in communion with the Pope: "...he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.
-- "The First See is judged by no one."
-- "The Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See."
-- "To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend, rule and govern the universal church."
-- "Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity."For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord."
-- Pope Venerable Pius XII, Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi:
"Christ enlightens His whole Church...it is He who enriches pastors and teachers and above all His Vicar on earth with the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that they may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain it and confirm it with reverence and devotion."
===================================================================================
Mister Merwick, thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, Pope Francis' Magisterium will never fail. It is impossible for Pope Francis to teach, govern, and sanctify us in false fashion.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mister Merwick said..."WE DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY DISOBEDIENCE. More specifically, many saints, not the least, St. Robert Bellarmine, have spoken about our obligation--OUR OBLIGATION to stand in opposition to any Church authority who preaches a false doctrine or introduces some new Gospel.."
Countless Catholics through the centuries have positioned themselves as arbiters of orthodoxy. Said folks have set themselves above the authentic interpreters of orthodoxy — that is, the Pope, as well as bishops in communion with the Pope.
During our time, for example, Archbishop Lefebvre had fancied himself an arbiter of orthodoxy. He insisted that he was obliged to oppose supposed false teachers...such as Popes Saints Paul VI, John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, as well as each bishop in communion with "modernist" Rome.
That did not work out well for Archbishop Lefebvre. Via his excommunication, Archbishop Lefebvre had joined the Church's countless arbiters of orthodoxy who, throughout the centuries, had set themselves above Popes.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
The First Commandment of God
Lesson 16 from the Baltimore. Catechism
What is the first commandment of God?
The first commandment of God is: I am the Lord thy God; thou shall not have strange gods before Me.
200. How do we worship God?
We worship God by acts of faith, hope and charity, and by adoring Him and praying to Him.
Mark, for Catholics, and all Christians, the above is where the emphasis must be; as opposed to an exaggerated ultramontanism that treats each new pope as automatically an oracle of God. It is simply wrong to attribute infallibility to almost every papal utterance. With so much of what you write, one can almost get the impression that the first commandment or rule for Catholics is to regard each pope as permanently inspired! And then become prone to statements and or thoughts like “the infallibility of the pope is the infallibility of Jesus Christ himself” or “when the pope thinks, it is God thinking him in”.
What you have written here recently inspired to get out some old texts and read again about ultramontane enthusiasts like W G Ward in the mid 19th century who often claimed he’d like a new infallible statement from the pope on the table every morning in his The Times newspaper.
Do New Testament facts like Jesus telling Peter “get behind me, Satan” and St Paul correcting St Peter mean nothing to you?
Does the work of MANY Catholic historians over centuries (faithful, loyal Catholics) detailing past blunders and mistakes by certain popes mean nothing to you…
No offence, but repeatedly for years, you’ve given the impression that the first rule, even the first commandment, for Catholics must be to treat each reigning pope as a personally inspired oracle of God.
Fr McDonald has more succinctly pointed out the errors in your seriously problematic views -
Has anything got through?
Mark,
Are you capable of reading the 2 Wikipedia biographical pages for:
Hilary of Poitiers, Bishop of Poitiers and a DOCTOR of the Church. Sometimes referred to as the Hammer of the Arians and “the Athanasius of the West” - Venerated in Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy etc…?
I fear “Papalotry” - an excessive and inordinate respect and even adulation for the person of reigning pontiffs, that has occurred in our era, could soon be listed as a mental disorder in the next edition of the DSM for psychiatrists.
Oh my...
This is taking me in so many disparate directions, I hardly know where to begin. MT seems to be stuck on one single guarantee that the pope speaks for Christ. And while his devotion is laudable, it is woefully myopic.
First, our history is replete with examples of popes who were anything but holy and certainly did not improve or even maintain the state of the Church. I only mentioned Alexander VI, because he is the most notorious, but there are plenty of others, including the Medici popes and Benedict IX (thank you Paul).
Second, we have the testimony of saints and mystics warning us of a time of apostasy that would come and would come "from the top". I understand that when it comes to apparitions we are under no obligation to believe them or their messages, but I think it's worth considering that when such messages are false or harmful, the Church condemns them. That said, Padre Pio confessed to Fr. Gabriel Amorth that the Third Secret of Fatima's worst result would be apostasy within the Church. Specifically he told Amorth, "It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church." Bishop Sheen warned of the coming "Ape of the Church." Blessed Anna Katerina Emmerich foretold such a Church as well. At La Salette we were warned that Rome would lose the faith, become the seat of the Antichrist and a false Church would come in to being."
Third, If anyone reads the life of Archbishop Lefebvre (whom Benedict called "a great man of the Church"--and lifted the SSPX excommunications) did not seem himself as an arbiter of anything except his conscience, which we as Catholics are taught we must obey when properly informed. He signed on to Vatican II, then saw what was being done with it and realized he could not, in good conscience, join the clown show. Summmorum Pontificum and Pope John Paul II's oft-ignored indult of 1988 likely would never happened had it not been for Lefebvre.
There's more--much more, but to finalize my all-too-long post, I will add that Bergoglio's papacy will always have the cloud of questionable legitimacy over it, thanks to the open admission of various Sankt Gallen Mafia members who openly admitted their violation of canon law in engineering his election. And if he WAS legitimately elected, a strong case could me made that he has tossed his authority by tying his papacy to heresy and pagan worship. To ignore all of this might give one a blissful sense of security, but it is also a blissful denial of reality.
The most important aspect of obedience to the pope applies only to the Faith and Morals of the Church and just human (canon) laws erected for the common good of the Church. Yes, bishops must obey the rescript on TC, as a matter of legislation. Clearly another pope can send these decisions back to the bishops as Vatican II taught. Another pope can reinstate SP! Another pope could suppress the MRM and promulgate another one, blended with the TLM. Who knows. Yes, we must obey.
We do not have to be obedient to things outside the scope of the papal mandate. We don’t have to believe blindly the science the pope teaches about climate change and the end of the world’s time frame. We don’t have to accept that he is correct when he says Tradtional Catholics are psychologically compromised, fundamentalists and rigid. His mandate is not to be a psychiatrist, even if his diagnosis might be right, although clearly it is wrong and wrong headed to say.
And if a pope changes defined Catholic teaching in the areas of faith and morals, such as blessing LGBTQ++++ ideologies and unions, that clearly demands disobedience from faithful Catholics.
If the pope says the Eucharist is not to be defined by Transubstantiation and is purely symbolic and similar to what Baptists believe and thus we can give Holy Communion to non-Catholics, non baptized people and to animals, preferable pets considered to be members of one’s family or a spouse, we must disobey the pope.
Paul, time and again, I have quoted Church teaching in regard to the Papacy. I am just the messenger.
If "ultramontanism" consists of having noted, for example, that he who hears Pope Francis (and bishops in communion with the Pope), hears Jesus Christ, then you need to take that up with Holy Mother Church. The Church, not I, formulated that teaching.
-- The Church, not I, determined that "The First See is judged by no one."
-- "The Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See."
-- "To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend, rule and govern the universal church."
The Church formulated all of the above teachings.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Thank you Father McDonald. Your succinct summary of the problem surpasses my verbose exploration.
And darn it, I'M NOT A PELAGIAN EITHER!
Father McDonald said..."We do not have to be obedient to things outside the scope of the papal mandate. We don’t have to believe blindly the science the pope teaches about climate change and the end of the world’s time frame. We don’t have to accept that he is correct when he says Tradtional Catholics are psychologically compromised, fundamentalists and rigid. His mandate is not to be a psychiatrist, even if his diagnosis might be right, although clearly it is wrong and wrong headed to say."
Father McDonald, I am not talking about that.
I have never said, for example:
Pope Francis declared that My Mother The Car is the greatest sitcom in history. We are required as Catholics to believe that.
===========================================================================
I am talking about the mutiny against the Papal Magisterium that is prevalent among many commenters here, and elsewhere within the Church.
I am talking folks who believe that they have the authority to determine that this, or that, Magisterial teaching is orthodox.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."If the pope says the Eucharist is not to be defined by Transubstantiation and is purely symbolic and similar to what Baptists believe and thus we can give Holy Communion to non-Catholics, non baptized people and to animals, preferable pets considered to be members of one’s family or a spouse, we must disobey the pope."
Father McDonald, that example is beyond anything that pertains to the discussion at hand.
That example does not suffice as the Papal Magisterium operates under Divine protection.
Such "teaching" as you described above is an impossibility.
We have commenters in this thread who have made it clear that they determine as to whether Papal Teaching is orthodox. Said folks believe that they define when the Pope is permitted to act as their teacher, governor, and sanctifier.
They sit in judgement of the Apostolic See.
Father McDonald, that is what we have discussed here.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Interesting item at Rorate Caeli, Fr. McDonald:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/03/report-from-rome-in-deep-crisis-terror.html
This pope is polarizing. He’s the blame for that and he alone. this pope is sloppy in his written and oral communications. this pope and no one esle is responsible for that which then forces him to ignore those who complain, or if it is someone he is courting for advice, like the heterodox James Martin, he corrects himself and overnight and in a hand written note.
This pope has unnecessarily angered those who loved Pope Benedict and his pastoral style and liberality in terms of the TLM. He’s responsible for that.
This pope allows chatter in the heterodox and heretical way, i.e McElroy, Hollerich, Marx and many more. But if a bishop wants to do his job as Vatican II taught, in terms of regulating the liturgy, the pope clamps down on him and micros manages him and his priests’ bulletins.
I am blaming the pope, because tht is where the blame needs to be, not on those correcting the pope.
Mark,
A hypothetical situation and question:
You are in the Vatican, Rome. For some reason Pope Francis chooses to approach you; you and Pope Francis have a conversation; the conversation ends with Francis telling you “Mark, your beliefs about me, and the papacy, while motivated by love and loyalty, are honestly simplistic, exaggerated and misguided ….in fact, incorrect.”
What would you do?
No, Father McDonald's argument is certainly NOT beyond anything that pertains to this discussion and the example given is certainly NOT beyond impossibility. It's right on target.
Closing your eyes and singing yourself to sleep will not stop reality from rolling over you like a semi truck.
The Church needs bold faith. It needs orthodoxy. It needs saints.
It doesn't need sycophants.
Jerome Merwick..."No, Father McDonald's argument is certainly NOT beyond anything that pertains to this discussion and the example given is certainly NOT beyond impossibility. It's right on target."
Okay. That is fine.
I, of course, disagree with you. I have disagreed with Father McDonald. But I do not have any anger, rage, or bitterness, in regard to my having disagreed with each of you.
I hope that I have done so in respectful, peaceful fashion.
Anyway, I thank you, and Father McDonald, for your replies.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Paul said..."Mark, A hypothetical situation and question: You are in the Vatican, Rome. For some reason Pope Francis chooses to approach you; you and Pope Francis have a conversation; the conversation ends with Francis telling you “Mark, your beliefs about me, and the papacy, while motivated by love and loyalty, are honestly simplistic, exaggerated and misguided ….in fact, incorrect."
Paul, I wish to be very careful in my reply as it is not always easy to convey in print one's attitude. I do not mean one bit of nastiness in regard to the following:
Paul, over the years when I have had this conservation about Church teaching in regard to obedience to the Pope, I have received replies akin to the hypotheticals today offered by you, as well as additional folks.
The scenarios in question are beyond the realm of reality.
I may as well have been asked:
-- "Mark, what if Pope Francis taught that to remain in communion with him, we must kill 10 people each day. Would you obey him?"
-- "Mark, what if Pope Francis taught that ween need to commit at least five mortal sins each day to remain holy.
Paul, I have to move on in regard to out-of-the-realm-of-reality scenarios.
Thank you, Paul.
Mark Thomas
This is from the Pillar. Never thought I would agree with bishop Bätzing and what a batzinger he is:
What Bätzing appeared to find “unbearable” was Pope Francis’ introduction of an “adminstrative principle” alongside the two others.
“Now the pope says — he didn’t tell us this during the [German bishops’ November] ad limina visit: There is also an administrative principle. To that I say: Holy Father, you can put that forward. Yes, but then you can’t demand that people accept it. It is also not the Magisterium.”
It is about no women priests.
Mark,
What do you think it meant and what were the implications of Pope Paul VI stating as pope he still had to submit to the “apostolic authority” of Church Councils?
When you say and write: (without any qualifications) that any person who hears Francis, or hears any bishop in communion with him, that person hears Jesus Christ …..you are saying and writing ultramontane heresy - you are denying what Vatican I actually taught about restricting papal infallibility (I am willing to be corrected here by Frs McDonald, Fox or Kavanaugh here) but I am sure that the Catholic bishops at Vatican I in communion with Pius IX wanted to put an end to such excessive ultramontanism.
What do think Pope Benedict XVI was teaching average, ordinary Catholics when he spoke and wrote of a hermeneutic of continuity?
To follow and obey Pope Benedict would it not be better to ignore and even oppose Cardinal McElroy (a bishop in communion with Pope Francis) and Fr James Martin SJ on what they teach and what they mean regarding their “radical inclusion of LGBT people”? If you had attended a mass celebrated by Cardinal Marx in Germany in March last year to celebrate “20 years of Queer worship”….during the sermon at that Mass would you have been hearing Jesus Christ ? Because Cardinal Marx is in communion with Pope Francis?
It is not “hating Francis” to feel sad that it has to be Bishop Paprocki now - or a Cardinal Pell in the past - and not Pope Francis who remember the apercu of Blessed John Henry Newman, that the Ministry of the Roman Church within the Oikoumene is to be a barrier, a remora, against the intrusion of erroneous novelty.
Papal authority is not personal in an individualistic or whimsical sort of way. The pope is supposed to say, not what he feels and wants, but what the judgement of the Roman Church is as a corporate and structured body mindful of its own Holy and immemorial Tradition.
When PF, after some off the cuff remarks about his own liturgical preferences, emphatically adds “This is Magisterium “, he thus exemplifies the main error which he entertains with regard to his own job- description.
For most of Church history the ordinary laymen (before modernity, and a world of instant communications and rapid reporting) was blessed to hear nothing of the sillier things said by a pope in his private chapel yesterday morning and hear nothing of the proclivities of his nastier cronies….
With the present restrictions being enacted against the TLM what is one to make of Cardinal Sarah’s past words : that to attempt to ban the TLM or greatly restrict it would be the work of the devil…
To follow Pope Benedict’s teaching re the hermeneutic of continuity who should one listen to re restrictions on the TLM; Cardinal Sarah or Cardinal Cupich? Both are bishops in communion with PF.
Mark, if you received a private audience with PF and he asked you:
“Mark, was it pouring rain this morning, when you arrived at the Vatican?”
You reply: “No, your holiness”.
PF : “Mark, what would you say if I told you it was actually raining quite heavily?”
Should you reply “I am sorry, I have to trust my God-given senses and my own God-given grasp of reality.”
Or should you reply something like:
“I suppose it must have been raining in some special spiritual sense, and unlike your holiness, I was too sinful to see it.”
Finally, what Marian apparition was it when a visionary claimed Mary said a time will come when bishop will oppose bishop and cardinal will oppose cardinal?
The magisteriam is also bound by a hierarchy of truths. It is bound by the consistent teaching of what has been believed by the Church,taught and held "everywhere,always and by all" (The Vincentian Canon)
A pope cannot teach with any kind of moral or theological certainty that those outside the communion of the Church through a second marriage unannuled by the Church can partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
A pope cannot put climate change on the level or murder.
A pope can restrict worship in certain forms, however he is not thinking as a shepherd but as an ideologue when he does this. He can try to limit access to those who want to worship using the Old Rite.
He can confuse the faithful instead of confirming and strengthening them by his words and works because he is judged by no one have and many have come to believe in hyperpapalism and neo ultramontanism.
A pope's power really has become unlimitated.
Post a Comment