Jesus was crucified with a democratic process.That is pretty much my position. The democratic process is a brilliant political model and worth utilising in the Church so that every voice can be heard. The special gift the leader of the Church has over a political leader, is a final guarantee that he cannot be wrong in his ‘policy decisions’ regarding the faith and morality issues of its ‘constituents’.
As I said, the Pope unlike the democratic political leader, is protected from wrong decisions by the promise of Christ.
The Pope is not protected 24/7 from error. The only time we have a guarantee that the Pope is infallible is under very specific and limited conditions.
When he ‘makes policy’ he is protected from error. In this current situation around a couple of synod issues, he has invited a wide range of ideas to the table in the spirit of democratic discussion… but when he ‘makes policy’ as a result of the Churchs processes, he cannot teach error. He cannot make a decision that will harm faith or Catholicism. That guarantee is not limited to the occasions of declarations of dogma. It guarantees all his teachings. His fearlessness to explore comes from a deep trust in that guarantee.
I agree with you. But let’s face it, not that Pope Francis has any such intentions but if the Pope were to suppress the Benedictines, for example, you and I would be quite upset, wouldn’t we? I don’t know about you but I’d be praying 24/7 that the next Pope would restore the order ASAP.
This is not the faith we have received. He has authority to set policy, but no divine guarantee that his policies would not be calamitous to the good of souls. The Pope cannot proclaim error as Dogma, and the Church will never be completely overcome by evil, everything else is fair game for the devil. The closest thing I’ve heard to what you say is the theological opinion that the Church, by virtue of it’s indefectability, could never perscribe to all the faithful universally something which is inherently evil, but that isn’t an authoritative teaching, and it doesn’t mean that a policy could not be disastrous or be incompatible with revealed truth.
Absolutely not true!!! Please support this idea here with actual church teachings that teachings beyond EX-CATHEDRA teachings are infallible??? This is precisely what was rejected clearly by the Vatican I Council when the church defined papal infallibility and gave the very precise conditions for when a papal teaching can be termed infallibly-taught,that is “guaranteed as free from any error”. Even more so, please support with actual church teachings the idea that papal policy DECISIONS of any sort are also infallible or free of error. I suppose those old policies in the high middle ages to burn heretics to death and take their properties were free of error too? Of course not. The church is very clear on when the Pope teaches infallibly and it is ONLY when he makes ex-cathedra statements. In the last 100 years, only two such statements have been made: the assumption and the male-only priesthood.
I do not thing so. The Sanhedrin was an oligarchy and Rome was a monarchy.
We are all human. No, we should “anxious for nothing,” but we still are. If Cardinal Burke helps some Catholics with this anxiety by defining the outer boundaries of the synod, then he is doing a good, pastoral ministry.
The people voted to free Barabas instead of Christ.
Uh, not. Directly making a statement requires a direct statement free of syllogism. For example, Jesus did not mention receiving communion in this quote, so it requires at least this one step. Action is not a statement, and adding steps is not direct. I have a similar issue with the use of the word “literally”, like when a living person says that something literally killed them, or was the “literally the worst thing ever.”
First, this is strictly canonically. I hardly ever will accept that a situation is perfect and cannot be improved. Furthermore, I firmly believe that there are many capable people who can arrive at truth much, much quicker than the months and years that tribunals take. I do not accept that a slower more cumbersome process must by necessity be a more accurate process.
Good is good.
The only thing on this, is that I think this might be a way of supporting a particular political party without saying directly he thinks we should help build up the Republican Party. If that is the case, then I am all for Church leaders directly engaging the political system. I know they cannot do so under color of their office, but there should be no objection to their political involvement as citizens. If the Democrats do not like seeing their votes dwindle of moral issues, they could always abandon their sinful positions, and make themselves them the more Catholic Party.
I do not see where “error” is an issue. No one is speaking of changing doctrine. Disciplines and canon law can change. The Pope might behave in a way one thinks is a mistake, but it will always be an opinion that it was a mistake.
There was no vote on the crucifixion. A crowd was paid to yell the name. Even then the decision was in the hands of one person. I am really surprised that this incident is be used as a parallel to democracy, and in this case, the workings of the Church. That really misses the whole point of the narrative, the crucifixion and the discernment process in the Church.
There WAS a voice vote on WHO was to be crucified, Christ or Barabbas.
If this analogy a point to discredit the Catholic process of discernment, okay. It only supports my own opinion when something so incredulous and thin is held out, then defended. There is no need for fear. The Church has used this same process since the time Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. It is how we believe the Holy Spirit guides the Cardinals to choose the best man for the Pope. Trust in the Church, the whole of the Church.
THIS! Is why we listen when he speaks. He speaks clearly and consistently with the mind of the Church in a courageous way, unconcerned with anything but defense of the teaching. I find this whole matter rather incredulous for now the most orthodox among us is considered a “controversial” figure and those of us who listen to him, followers of a cult!