Pope Francis and his choices

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you are still extending the dogma much too far. It is not impeccability. There is a distinction between the private man and the public papal office he occupies as successor of Peter. See Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers
“A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible; only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.”
Click to expand...
And the infallible teaching is limited, indicated by the context of solemn language to pronounce it. in Munificentissimus Deus it was only a single line:
“that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
Click to expand...
None of the popes since have made any such infallible declarations, although Pope John Paul II confirmed an infallible teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
 
Last edited:
If some Pope in the future, decides to start a fascistic movement, would he still not be considered evil?
 
We don’t need to look to the future for evil behaviour in popes. Alexander VI, Benedict IX and John XII come to mind.
 
Last edited:
They did not teach any false doctrines, definitively. I believe that’s supernatural providence.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
They can’t lead souls astray.
Click to expand...
Not by their teaching, but by evil example.

I am not casting any judgment whatsoever on Pope Francis, by the way, nor do I think he is an “evil pope.”
 
Last edited:
If for example, the future pope decided that abortion is morally acceptable, would abortion become morally acceptable?
 
There is a book that is pertinent to this discussion. Love for the Papacy and Filial Resistance to the Pope in the History of the Church by Roberto de Mattei, with a forward by Cardinal Burke.
 
Neithan said:
Alexander VI, Benedict IX and John XII come to mind.
Click to expand...
Did you mean John XXII (22), who erroneously taught that the Blessed don’t see God until judgement day? (He repented of it on his deathbed.) John XII (12) was centuries earlier.
 
Last edited:
Nonatheist said:
If for example, the future pope decided that abortion is morally acceptable, would abortion become morally acceptable?
Click to expand...
The pope cannot make an infallible declaration contrary to Catholic morals. An antipope could try. I guess that would make him an automatic antipope if he tried. Obviously it’s fallible anyway.

As it is we don’t have any way really to make that antipope declaration definitive until we have a new pope who could do that retroactively. That would also introduce the difficulty that we could never know if a current, sitting pope is a pope or an antipope if there is no evident defect in their election by the college of cardinals. I think this is one reason we really need to restore communion with the ecumenical patriarch, but these are my own opinions.
 
Last edited:
The fact that it didn’t happen, doesn’t mean it’s not possible to happen.
 
Nonatheist said:
The fact that it didn’t happen, doesn’t mean it’s not possible to happen.
Click to expand...
And this is precisely why the Church allows different opinions on this matter. I’m not that well versed in all the different licit opinions, but the two main ones are that 1 the Pope is supernaturally prevented from doing anything like that, and 2 that a Pope can do it, but then ceases to be Pope. As it stands one is as good to believe as the other, since there never has been a heretical Pope.
 
Last edited:
The first one although unlikely is possible. yet it raises a question, why is Pope supernaturally not allowed to change Catholic morality, yet is allowed to commit evil, as history tells us.
The second one not so much, as the entire idea of how the pope is chosen is that God chose him, which would raise the problem of God choosing antipope.
 
Given the severe consequences it could have to faith in the living magisterium, and the lack of any historical evidence to the contrary, I think it is better — as in, more probable according to natural reason and congruent with divine faith — to believe that a pope would not attempt to definitively teach heresy.
 
I don’t believe that Francis is any less orthodox than his predecessors. He is orthodox.

He is a Jesuit. Jesuits have a certain way about them, and that’s fine.

I feel that the problems with, for instance, Amoris Laetitia are not to do with the Holy Father, because if it is read in light of tradition, then it really doesn’t say anything different to what the Church has always taught.
 
Last edited:
Nonatheist said:
The first one although unlikely is possible. yet it raises a question, why is Pope supernaturally not allowed to change Catholic morality, yet is allowed to commit evil, as history tells us.
Click to expand...
I try to be careful with going too deep into “why” questions. I can’t possibly know why God decides to do things, and anything I can come up with is speculation.
Still, if I should speculate, I would say that God could choose to restrict a Pope’s free will a little so as to not cause too much damage, but still leave the option to commit other sins because He wants us to have free will, and that entails consequences to our actions.
 
There were statues during the Amazon synod. Some people were bowing these freaks and false gods. Some Catholics threw them down the river but someone retrieved the statues and put it back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top