Italian writer stirs a hornet’s nest with doubts about Pope Francis
- Status
P
PTL
Guest
I have my hope and I have my assessment. That is where the prayers come in. I still honestly hope my observation is incorrect although every speech from the pope points to that direction. We will find out after the synod this October. I will be more than happy to see my worry does not come true. I will be more than happy to know my assessment is wrong.Whoa! Check out your post #!
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Well since you’re up to 667 I feel a little more comfortable answering. I hope the proposal doesn’t go through either. I personally don’t think it will, but I’ve been wrong before…I really hope we don’t all talk and stress about this for 10 months. I am already tired of it.
(I know it’s important but it’s irritating too, kind of.)
P
PTL
Guest
I agree. But it is important for the faithful to face any possible future event and be psychologically prepared, and know what to think and what to do. Everyone should ask himself the what if question and know what he will personally do in case the 2000 years doctrine is overturned. What if the pope says gay sex is OK? What if the pope says the church should welcome the gays in active sex relationship for receiving the Eucharist, even they continue to have gay sex without repentance? The pope has said many ambiguous things to do with gay sex. The media has been broadcasting that the Church is accepting gay sex. The pope has never clarify his words. It seems he purposely leaves it ambiguous to create atmosphere. The pope even said only give gay Eucharist is not enough, we should make them Eucharistic minister and God parents.Well since you’re up to 667 I feel a little more comfortable answering. I hope the proposal doesn’t go through either. I personally don’t think it will, but I’ve been wrong before…I really hope we don’t all talk and stress about this for 10 months. I am already tired of it.
In case all the speculations come true, are we to follow the new “doctrine” and forget both what the Old Testament and the New Testament has said? Are we to ignore Genesis 19, Romans 1, and many other verses in the Bible, to trash God’s Word and follow the pope?
Of course all these are hypothesis. But we do not want to be in shock and don’t know what to do in that case. I have already thought this out. In case this happen, God forbid, I will still serve the Lord and stick to the Gospel teaching. I will not allow my faith to crumble. I will continue to pray for those who deviate from the Lord’s teaching. All we can do is to pray for the bishops holding the authentic ground and not to compromise in next synod. After all, each of us is held accountable to the Lord. We make our own choice and hopefully all will be faithful to Christ, not to the world.
D
dmar198
Guest
Isn’t that a bit like asking “What if Jesus doesn’t fulfill His promise? What if the gates of hell really can overcome His Church?” I ask because I think your question suggests that you think Jesus might not protect the Church from doctrinal error. Do you see how I get that impression?
What about when he said not to listen to the media and pointed to the Catechism? I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. … The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church. source Isn’t the Catechism clear? Because I think pointing to it counts as a clarification. What do you think?
Can you give a source for this comment? Because I think you are misquoting him.
D
dmar198
Guest
That’s also a feature of distributism.
No, I think people should be able to choose where to work too. I think it would be good to educate people so that more people choose to work for themselves than to work for someone else, and I think there should be more support for cooperatives and local businesses than for large corporations. Does that make sense?
D
dmar198
Guest
No, I think they’ll continue to sow lies. And I think viewers will bring up what the media says in front of faithful Catholics, and will receive better info from them.
And it’s bad. But there was a good result among the bad results: some viewers posted on Facebook about what they had heard from the Media, and talked about it at work, and some faithful Catholics responded by pointing out the true teaching of the Church and defending it. For some viewers, that was the first time they heard the Catholic Church’s teaching defended, and I don’t think it would have happened if the pope hadn’t spoken up and gotten people talking.
Not by the media, because I think they typically misstate Church teaching. But when those misstatements get talked about in social media and in everyday life, the truth often gets pointed out and defended in the comments, and that’s often the only time people are listening.
I think it’s much more frequent now. The only time I can remember something similar happening with Pope Benedict was when he said something about condoms that the Media misinterpreted. Suddenly, social media lit up with people talking about the Church changing its teaching on contraception, and people contacted me asking me what I thought. And there was a good result among the bad results: Catholic apologists answered those claims while people were listening, and some of them learned the truth from those apologists for the first time. Now, stuff like that is happening like once a month with Pope Francis, whereas I can only remember it happening one time with Pope Benedict.
I agree with that, and I think Pope Francis has said the same thing.
P
PTL
Guest
There is a thread here providing the source of what the pope said. You can search for it.
I am not here to debate for anything. Like I said, I would be more than happy to prove my worry is invalid. And I am not the only one who worries. Many “conservatives” worry about our current pope. May God bless the pope.
While the Lord is protecting his Church, keep in mind He often allows tribulations. We may have to go through heresy for a period of time. If so, we need to remain faithful to Christ’s teaching no matter what. There were period of heresy in the Church history. It is nothing new. It is just the degree of heresy. We may see something we have never experienced before. Again, hopefully it will never happen.
D
dmar198
Guest
Here’s the closest thing to what you’re talking about that I’m aware of: In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated. source Is this the quote you were referring to? Because I think it is very different from how you put it. For one, it doesn’t mention people with same-sex attraction, and secondly, it doesn’t say giving them the Eucharist is not enough, it more closely says that is not a solution. And that reflects what the pope previously said: they cannot receive Communion. “About the problem of Communion to those persons in a second union, that the divorced might participate in Communion, there is no problem. When they are in a second union, they can’t. I believe that it is necessary to keep this within the entirety of pastoral care of marriage.” source
If the pope was about to change the discipline on the divorced and the remarried, why would he say otherwise?
But so far, no one has been able to point to a reason why. Some think he wants to change a Church teaching, but he consistently defends Church teaching. Others think he has departed from Pope Benedict’s message; but he hasn’t said anything except to repeat what Pope Benedict said. So what’s the basis for this worry? I think it’s just people listening to the media too much, and Pope Francis has said not to listen to the media. He was even asked if the Church would change its teaching: [Q.] Some people fear that the traditional doctrine shall collapse…
[A.] You know, some people are always afraid because they don´t read things properly, or they read some news in a newspaper, an article, and they don´t read what the synod decided, what was published. … [T]he Pope is the ultimate guarantor, the Pope is there to care for the process. source
You seem to be afraid the Church may change its doctrine. Can you give any example of a time in history where it did that? Because I think that would prove that Jesus didn’t protect His Church. Does that make sense?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
PTL, your needless distress is poisoning you. Listen to yourself. Perhaps keep Psalm 23 near at hand. My spiritual director is always very alert when I mention the devil because the devil is such a shifty character, we mere mortals should not attempt to use him in the way you are, especially to accuse fellow Catholics or the works of our Pope.
I think woe to those who are filling you with these doubts and fears. They are not the ‘conservatives’ because I myself identify as a conservative and I have no fear. I trust in the Church and the protection of the Holy Spirit and say the Creed with the deepest heartfelt conviction. The people that are scaring you witless are ‘fundamentalists’ not conservatives.
"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me"
Psalm 23
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
I agree that increasing the percent of business owners is a good goal and that we should make it easier for individuals to start businesses.
Under distributism, who does the distributing?
D
dmar198
Guest
Hilaire Belloc gives several suggestions for that in Section 7 of “The Servile State”:
[1.] “If I desire to substitute a [large] number of small owners for a few large ones in some particular enterprise, how shall I set to work?”
[2.] “I might boldly confiscate [the large property] and redistribute [it among many].” But this would involve “enormous and innumerable separate acts of injustice.” Plus, “[this] would so disturb the whole network of economic relations as to bring ruin at once to the whole body politic.”
[3.] “I [could] proceed more slowly and more rationally and [direct] the economic life of society so that small property shall gradually be built up within it.”
[4.] For example, “* benefit small savings at the expense of large.”
[5.] I could encourage people “[to] build up small property through thrift.”
[6.] “Or, let the policy be pursued of [taxing] undertakings with few owners…and of subsidising with the produce small holders in proportion to the smallness of their holding.”
Hilaire gives a few other general suggestions in that section of his book. But it should be pointed out that #2 above explicitly rejects the Communist model where the government confiscates large property and redistributes it.
In a seventh quote that I’ve reproduced below, Hilaire considers whether it would be slightly better if the government bought out large properties and then redistributed them, because at least no one’s property would be stolen in such a scenario. But he identifies that idea as having numerous problems. I think an obvious one is this: a government couldn’t buy large properties and give them away for very long before running out of money. Plus, that would still make the government a distributor of property, and Hilaire seems to think that is dangerous.
I think suggestions 3-5 make more sense. #5 seems to be a project of education. If you educate people toward building up their own property through thrift, the hope would be that people would eventually transition from thinking of themselves as dependent on large companies for their livelihood. Gradually, with a project of education about the benefits of small ownership, including in business, the norm might change to where people generally make their livings off of their own property rather than off of someone else’s.
I also think there’s something to #6, except I don’t like the government subsidizing things. Instead, perhaps the government could make the taxes on small owners and cooperatives lower than the taxes on large corporations. Then, people would be more likely to start up their own companies or work together with their community to start a cooperative.
I think cooperatives are better than corporations because they are more accountable to the community than a corporation is, and because the workers in a cooperative often collect the profits from their collective labor, rather than letting it go to a corporate office and trickle up into large bonuses and down to anonymous stockholders. But people need education to run a cooperative. Hilaire points out what would happen if you suddenly turned every corporation into a cooperative:
[7.] “* the works of one of our great Trusts, purchase it with public money, [and] bestow, even as a gift, the shares thereof to its workmen.” “[But] can I count upon any tradition of property in their midst which will prevent their squandering the new wealth? Can I discover any relics of the co-operative instinct among such men?” “[T]he strongest force against the distribution of ownership in a society already permeated with Capitalist modes of thought is still the moral one: Will men want to own?”
I also think a major difficulty with starting cooperatives is that your average worker doesn’t know how to run a company. For a business to work, you need leadership, and so the cooperative needs to vote together to create a board of directors and an executive. But once the executive starts getting bonuses and larger paychecks than the rest of the workers, you’re back to a corporate model. If you rotate the executive through the ranks of the workers, though, you could avoid turning him into a corporate-style CEO.
This is why education is so important: if people are taught the benefits of small property ownership, of working for yourself, and of how to run a cooperative, and if there is more support for cooperatives and small businesses than for large corporations, I think gradually society will shift away from a model where most people work for large corporations (Hilaire’s understanding of capitalism) to a model where most people work for themselves and in cooperatives. And that’s the main difference between distributism and capitalism.**
P
PTL
Guest
Yes, same here. Only those who stick to the Gospel teaching and persist to the last minute would be saved. St. Paul said we much treat our salvation with fear and trembling. Holding an attitude of “I am OK, You are Ok” would not bring us to heaven, being faithful to the teaching of Christ will. People can call black white, and white black. They can use the name of “love” to acknowledge sin as norm. They can use the name of the Holy Spirit to do whatever they “feel like”, but truth could never be changed or modified and if we truly keep the Gospel teaching in heart, we will know what to do and what not to do, what to follow and what not to follow. That’s where critical thinking, value of principle, and faithfulness come in. I have peace of my mind too. God bless!
P
PTL
Guest
Yes, our eyes should always focus on Jesus who is the only Truth. The Bible has said there would be false prophets and tribulations in end time. We are now in end time. All is happening and may happen in the future have already been predicted. We just need to be faithful to the Gospel and pray.Yes, we must not lose our capacity for joy or our faith over this spat. It’s not worth it. Whatever you think about the future of the Church, God isn’t going anywhere. Once you can get that through your head, you’re ok.
D
dmar198
Guest
To me, you guys are committing a great heresy without realizing it. If you think the Church can fall into heresy and you can remain in it, then it seems that you are saying it is okay to belong to a Church that teaches heresy, so long as it has valid Sacraments. The early Novatianists had a valid priesthood and all 7 Sacraments, but it was a sin to belong to them because their church taught heresy. The Monophysites had a valid priesthood and all 7 Sacraments, but it was a sin to belong to them because their church taught heresy. There are many other examples. The point is, why would you remain in the Catholic Church if it changed its doctrines? To me, the only conclusion is, the Church cannot fall into heresy. Therefore, no pope and no Council will ever change Church doctrine. Where does that argument go wrong? How can you think it is possible that the pillar and foundation of the truth will ever teach falsehood?
P
PTL
Guest
What we were discussing is purely a hypothetical situation - in case huge heresy happens. Hopefully it will never happen. In case it does, what would you do? Are you saying to quit being a Catholic and quit all the Sacraments? If your parents committed some crime, are you denouncing your family and changing your last name?
The Church is the Church Christ established. Even if it deviates due to leadership, it is still Christ’s Church. And keep in mind, the devil will never win at the end. Even if the boat is steering to the wrong side, it will be temporary. Eventually this boat will steer back to its right course.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Well, I hate to tell you this, but some people are predicting that doctrine will change, many of whom follow this issue a lot more closely than I do. I would suggest formulating a Plan B given your views above, just in case. To be honest, I’ll deal with that change if and when it happens. I don’t know if it would be enough to make me leave the Church or not; it would depend on how it played out and what others did, etc., etc. I guess you could say I am open to the Holy Spirit on that.
(though the overuse of that phrase is really starting to annoy me) I also believe there is about a 65% chance the proposal will be rejected at the Synod and that Francis will accept that.I am thinking in much larger terms here. I personally don’t feel that the debate of this issue comprises everything about my faith in God and what role that faith plays in my life. In that respect I differ I think with some other Catholics. My faith in God will endure, however this plays out, inside or outside the Church. I accept God’s will. (sorry if I am being vague or unclear; am in a hurry…)
D
dmar198
Guest
Matt Fradd of Catholic Answers says in his talk “How to Win an Argument Without Losing a Soul” that if you could provide just one instance in history where the Church changed its teaching, that would prove that it isn’t infallible, and he would leave the Church. I would do the same. Because if the Church changes its teaching, doesn’t that mean it’s not infallible? Why belong to a Church that isn’t what Jesus started? Because I think it’s clear from Church teaching that Jesus started an infallible Church. What do you think of that argument?
No, because my family isn’t infallible. The true Church is. If the Church changes its teaching, it isn’t infallible, and therefore is not the true Church. If that’s wrong, what am I missing?
Have you considered this counter-argument? The Church Jesus started is infallible. If the Catholic Church changes its teaching, then it isn’t infallible. Therefore, the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ established if it can change its teachings. There – how do you answer that argument?
How can it change if the Church is infallible?
I think it’s more likely than that. One reason why is, Pope Francis has already explicitly said he will keep the discipline the same and that the doctrine won’t change. “About the problem of Communion to those persons in a second union, that the divorced might participate in Communion, there is no problem. When they are in a second union, they can’t. I believe that it is necessary to keep this within the entirety of pastoral care of marriage.” source
- Status