Pope's comments

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billcu1

Guest
How much of the Pontiff’s comments do we have to follow. What he talks sounds to me like a bunch of politics so much of the time. For example, the Lumen Gentum is politically correct but not necessarily accurate politically speaking. Now in matters of faith and morals, we have to follow that I understand. Ex cathedra definitely. Do we have to believe lutem gentum politics? The fantasy world of politics is fallacy anyway. Life seldom works with this extreme way over here. And this one way over there.
 
If you’re talking about issues like what to do about the poor, refugees, immigration or the environment policy-wise, you don’t have to agree with the Vatican.

The Church has made its views on the right to life, religious freedom and the nuclear family very clear, and that includes Pope Francis.

Above all, you have to properly form and follow your conscience.
 
Last edited:
Are you asking what degree of assent the laity should give to Lumen Gentium? LG is a dogmatic constitution of the Church, not a “comment” from a pope.

And what do you define as ‘Lumen Gentium politics’?
 
Hum It seems I might have made a mistake. I meant lumen fidei by Francis. Not the Vatican 2 text. And I am seeing now that Lumen Fidei might not have been what I have meant. Some of the Pope’s personal comments have sounded political in my view. But I guess LG is a Vatican document and we are dogmatically required to follow. At least in part. Is there any difference in it since it’s from an ecumenical council and not just an encyclical by a Pope?
 
ANswer to ¶ 1 is yes that’s much of what I am saying. Now when you say “religious freedom” what is that and we are required to believe that? What is “nuclear”?
 
Are you asking what degree of assent the laity should give to Lumen Gentium? LG is a dogmatic constitution of the Church, not a “comment” from a pope.
I thing LG is actually an encyclical, not a dogmatic constitution… but your point remains valid
 
Religous freedom means the right to practice your religion without interference, short of obvious nonsense like honour killings.

The Vatican has strongly emphasized this in the context of Western liberals trying to force bakeries, florists and even farmers to participate in “weddings” that violate a person’s conscience. If you don’t live in the Anglo world, it’s probably a bizarre concept.
 
Last edited:
I’m saying the Pope speaks for the church. If you feel like his comments conflict with your political views then that is your problem.
 
Last edited:
I’m saying the Pope speaks for the church. If you feel like his comments conflict with your political views then that is your problem.
are you obligated to believe everything the pope says?
 
What, please? Your post is too confused for me to even grasp what you are trying to ask.

Lumen Gentium is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Vatican II – which was promulgated before Pope Francis was ordained a priest.

Lumen Fidei is an encyclical written almost entirely by Pope Benedict for the Year of Faith, which Pope Francis added some passages to and chose to publish some three months after his election, which of course was following the resignation of the Pope Emeritus.

Religious freedom is well encapsulated in Dignitatis humanae, also a decree of Vatican II.

As for your first question, I read over his daily homily from the Casa Santa Marta and anything else I can get my hands on, such as the texts of the general audience and the Angelus each week and such other addresses as he gives.
 
Oh yes the so called “tolerant ones”. Tolerant to sin it sounds to me. And for those who agree. Well they say sometime things will get so bad every where that the Church itself will be threatened.
 
The Church needs to stick to its principles. People are going to leave the RCC in droves if the Church doesn’t have an appreciation for the Truth it was founded on.

We are the only religion that has it.

If there is one thing people cannot stand, it’s hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Short answer is no–the Pope is not God so we are not bound to his every opinion and whim. When he teaches the Church as the supreme teach of all the faithful we are to give his teachings a certain kind of deference and respect in the manner the Pope intends. For example, if he intends to definitively proclaim an irreformable truth revealed by God, we must accept that proposition with divine faith. If he intends to just give us some food for thought, without an obligation toward it, then that’s what we do. His intention can generally be known by the kind of document he uses, his manner of speaking, etc. There’s no indication random comments need to be treated as anything other than that.

One thing Pope Francis does well in his encyclicals and exhortations where he teaches the whole Church is lay out his intentions early on–there is always a paragraph or two where he lays out his plan for the document and his intentions for each section. For example, in his exhortation Evangelii Gaudium he has a section entitled “Scope and Limitations of this Exhortation” where he says he is merely offering “guidelines,” not intending to provide anything definitive (see paragraphs 16 and 17 of that document). Others he frames as invitations to dialogue or discernment for some parts and doctrinal restatements for other parts. Obviously, our response to these intentions are much different than if he said he intended to provide the definitive judgment on a particular dogmatic controversy, which he has not done as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:
A quick note with regard to politics–of course it is within the Church’s mission to intercede in political matters. Politics is the realm of the interactions and governance of human beings, where morality and the truth revealed in Jesus Christ is of the utmost necessity and importance. From the Catechism:

2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53
 
Last edited:
Oh yes the so called “tolerant ones”. Tolerant to sin it sounds to me. And for those who agree. Well they say sometime things will get so bad every where that the Church itself will be threatened.
There’s a 180 degree difference between love on one side and on the other, tolerance, which actually implies disinterest, and the support of sin. I guess you’d be one of the guys criticizing Jesus for hanging out with tax collectors and prostitutes. We’re supposed to love sinners and try to bring them back into the fold.
 
If there is one thing people cannot stand, it’s hypocrisy.
If that were true we wouldn’t keep electing the biggest hypocrites to public office. I guess there’s not much of a choice. But a poor choice is far, far better than no choice.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top