Report: Some Cardinals Want Pope Francis to Resign, Fear Schism Worse Than The Reformation

[Thomas_White]

But according to the report, the “resistance” here reported is from the liberal group???

Yes, that is correct. The Cardinals are said to be among the group that has supported Pope Francis in the past but now have become concerned. I don’t know if “resistance” would be the right word though–if the report is correct it is beyond that. Who knows how accurate the reporting might be, but I don’t think it is a good sign that such views are being expressed.

Having read several biographies of Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis), it is correct that he has in the past had an authoritarian bent (e.g., while Jesuit Provincial in Argentina), which he has acknowledged. It just seems the situation could get very serious.

 

[commenter]

I think we Catholics need to be more awake and critical of media “reports” whether it be about Trump or Pope Francis. Rarely are even respected news outlets objective, factual or unbiased these last 10 years.

All the hall marks of manipulation and button pressing are present in the below link.

One of the more obvious ploys, and indications, of being “alternative fact bombed” is Internet news syndication. By that I mean when you get linked to an article and you try and find the actual originating sources. After 30 mins of searching on the topic you end up discovering a large number of newspapers or outlets all running verbatim the same alleged quotes, and even the commentary quotes seem to be verbatim. Then you notice they are also found on an increasingly growing list of more extreme or known tabloid news sites as well.

Then finally one realises that nobody has done any critical investigation or journalism on the issue at all…certainly not by the “respected” news outlet (eg Sunday Times in this case). In fact there has been a massive repetition of simply one individual’s views. In this case Antonio Socci who is a sworn adversary of Pope Francis for some years now. And he has no facts that can be verified at all, he names no names and simply assumes people agree with his Chicken Little spin re the mind numbing crisis in Catholic Church.

Well yes Pope Francis clearly has caused a crisis in Mr Socci’s set view of the Church but most of the laity who don’t write popularist books for a living or who don’t feel they are of manager level status in the Church are quite accepting of the navigation of the Barque of Peter by the person actually assigned to that role.

Good analysis.

 

[Pulvis]

My view on the matter:

The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality. – Dante

 

[twf]

This is a gross distortion of the issue. The controversy is over whether the divorced and remarried may be readmitted to the sacraments under certain conditions.

Did you read my whole post? “At least that’s the rhetoric.”
Someone asked what has the Pope done that is “so bad”. For those who oppose these reforms, that’s what it boils down to. As I said, the reality is much more complicated.
Regardless, while I would not personally phrase it that way (hence my use of the qualifier “that’s the rhetoric”), objectively speaking these couples are not married to each other in eyes of God or Church.

 

[twf]

I don’t think so. It is larger than the controversy over AL. As I recall, there was for instance significant disagreement among conservatives about Laudato si and a reluctance to accept the teaching of this papal encyclical. I believe the real issue concerns the focus on the pastoral rather than on doctrine and the belief that practice can change without changing doctrine. This process has not been nearly as smooth as was apparently expected. I think there is likely something to what the article reports, but maybe only on the level of “office politics” where a number of employees typically are at odds with the new “boss”. I don’t know, but if so this is the classic “resistance to change” as seen within nearly any organization.

In regards to Laudato Si, I’m not so sure. American Conservative laity took issue with it, because of their Republican values. The Catholic Church at large? The hierarchy? I don’t think so. There have definitely been other issues. Cardinals Kasper and Marx have hinted that the Pope is entertaining exploring inter-communion with Lutherans…that would be a huge bombshell in conservative circles… but so far the only “huge bombshell”, to my knowledge, has been the controversy surrounding implementation of AL (particularly guidelines in Argentina, Malta, etc.).

 

[Abynissa]

Why is everyone worried if you believe that the Church was founded on Peter and the Gates of Hell cannot prevail? Does not the conclave under the guidance of the Holy Spirit choose your Pope? Why do American Catholics believe that they are the center of thier religious universe? It’s a prochial viewpoint. Believe it or not, most of the world’s Catholics reside outside the United States. He is a Pope to the global Catholic community, is he not?

If the Catholic teaching on their doctrine of Papal authority, infallibility is correct, it will stand. Otherwise, they will have to reinterpret more in line to Eastern Orthodox viewpoints, I suppose. This sort of issue came up during Cyprian era concerning the lapsed and rebatized Christians in oppostion to Pope Cornelius. It also came up during the Arian controversy.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Why is everyone worried if you believe that the Church was founded on Peter and the Gates of Hell cannot prevail? Does not the conclave under the guidance of the Holy Spirit choose your Pope? Why do American Catholics believe that they are the center of thier religious universe? It’s a prochial viewpoint. Believe it or not, most of the world’s Catholics reside outside the United States. He is a Pope to the global Catholic community, is he not?

If the Catholic teaching on their doctrine of Papal authority, infallibility is correct, it will stand. Otherwise, they will have to reinterpret more in line to Eastern Orthodox viewpoints, I suppose. This sort of issue came up during Cyprian era concerning the lapsed and rebatized Christians in oppostion to Pope Cornelius. It also came up during the Arian controversy.

I agree with some of this. I will let go of papal infallibility a lot quicker than I will established doctrine from the Gospel. I think the hope is to preserve both. But I do concede there is an awkwardness, embarrassment here that we would perhaps have been better off to have avoided - to give a nod to our Eastern brethren, more in line with them, even our Protestant brethren for that matter. Just my opinion though I assure you. (by which I mean bypassed on the PI business - This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, but had been defended before that, existing already in medieval theology and being the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation.) I think the idea was that the Pope unites, stabilizes the Church…maybe this can undergo ‘development’ to ‘discernment.’ Give it a maybe based on conscience.

I don’t think the gates of hell will prevail on God’s Church, his faithful elect. This lines up with the Gospel. I think Peter could be in for a little bit of a rough ride, though to the extent that he survives this challenge, he’ll be fine. And he will survive it in some form, remnant.

What is this about American Catholics as the center of the universe? I missed the basis of that shot.

 

[twf]

I agree with some of this. I will let go of papal infallibility a lot quicker than I will established doctrine from the Gospel. I think the hope is to preserve both. But I do concede there is an awkwardness, embarrassment here that we would perhaps have been better off to have avoided - to give a nod to our Eastern brethren, more in line with them, even our Protestant brethren for that matter. Just my opinion though I assure you. (by which I mean bypassed on the PI business - This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, but had been defended before that, existing already in medieval theology and being the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation.) I think the idea was that the Pope unites, stabilizes the Church…maybe this can undergo ‘development’ to ‘discernment.’ Give it a maybe based on conscience.

I don’t think the gates of hell will prevail on God’s Church, his faithful elect. This lines up with the Gospel. I think Peter could be in for a little bit of a rough ride, though to the extent that he survives this challenge, he’ll be fine. And he will survive it in some form, remnant.

What is this about American Catholics as the center of the universe? I missed the basis of that shot.

While I profess the doctrine of papal infallibility (when it applies under very rare circumstances), and in no way doubt the infallibility of the Church as a whole, the way in which the Church exercises Her ministry has evolved over time and will continue to evolve. I would like to see a return to greater, authentic synodality along Orthodox lines (and in line with the practices of the ancient Catholic Church), but without sacrificing the essential ministry of primacy given by Our Lord to the successors of St. Peter. If you study Church history, you will quickly see that papal primacy does not necessarily equate to the Pope micromanaging the global Church, appointing the vast majority of its bishops, etc. etc. For most of Church history, what did the average Catholic know what the Bishop of Rome was doing hundreds or thousands of miles away? The Fathers focus on the importance of the local bishop. He is our shepherd as laity. The Pope, as chief among the bishops, is their shepherd.

 

[TMC]

I don’t think so. It is larger than the controversy over AL. As I recall, there was for instance significant disagreement among conservatives about Laudato si and a reluctance to accept the teaching of this papal encyclical. I believe the real issue concerns the focus on the pastoral rather than on doctrine and the belief that practice can change without changing doctrine. This process has not been nearly as smooth as was apparently expected. I think there is likely something to what the article reports, but maybe only on the level of “office politics” where a number of employees typically are at odds with the new “boss”. I don’t know, but if so this is the classic “resistance to change” as seen within nearly any organization.

I am not saying that there is not a legitimate discussion to be had over these doctrines, or that there is not some resistance to change. But to characterize the Pope’s position as allowing sinners to keep sinning without consequence is a gross distortion of the Pope’s teaching and not conducive to productive discussion or proper doctrinal development.

 

[TMC]

Did you read my whole post? “At least that’s the rhetoric.”
Someone asked what has the Pope done that is “so bad”. For those who oppose these reforms, that’s what it boils down to. As I said, the reality is much more complicated.
Regardless, while I would not personally phrase it that way (hence my use of the qualifier “that’s the rhetoric”), objectively speaking these couples are not married to each other in eyes of God or Church.

That is the rhetoric put forth by some of the Church’s opponents, but it is not an accurate summary of the issue. I certainly agree with you that the reality is much more complicated.

 

[FollowChrist34]

While I profess the doctrine of papal infallibility (when it applies under very rare circumstances), and in no way doubt the infallibility of the Church as a whole, the way in which the Church exercises Her ministry has evolved over time and will continue to evolve. I would like to see a return to greater, authentic synodality along Orthodox lines (and in line with the practices of the ancient Catholic Church), but without sacrificing the essential ministry of primacy given by Our Lord to the successors of St. Peter. If you study Church history, you will quickly see that papal primacy does not necessarily equate to the Pope micromanaging the global Church, appointing the vast majority of its bishops, etc. etc. For most of Church history, what did the average Catholic know what the Bishop of Rome was doing hundreds or thousands of miles away? The Fathers focus on the importance of the local bishop. He is our shepherd as laity. The Pope, as chief among the bishops, is their shepherd.

Right, I think you are correct. Of course the East disputes the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Far be it from me to opine on that. I can see both sides to be honest. The Pope as Bishop of Rome is head of the largest, oldest part of the original Church. I have struggled with (and basicallly rejected) the idea that any human being, be he the ‘Vicar of Christ’ or not is infallible. There are very rare instances as you state where this concept of ‘infallibility’ even appropriately applies. And it does serve a purpose - you can argue it has held the Roman Catholic Church together to now. But what of now? That is what makes this so tragic really. I guess there is still some hope of fixing it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

My view on the matter:

The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality. – Dante

As one who has actually read all of Dante (presumably you refer to “Inferno”) … I don’t think so.

And without even doing a search on a digital version I can tell you exactly why right now:
(a) anyone who has read the Inferno knows that Dante does not see the worst place in hell (ie the lowest level) as being “hot”. In fact he describes it as being very cold and Satan himself is bound there in a block of ice.
(b) Your “quote” is hardly a quote because it nowhere resembles any of the classical English translations in metre, olde worlde vocab, lyricism, rhyme or in fact anything.
(c) The words and concepts expressed are far more modern formulations than used at his time and rarely does Dante express himself so bluntly.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)



But perhaps you can provide the actual reference to where in “Inferno” we might actually find this stanza so we can compare the above with the original?

Or maybe we need to realise this is just another example of uncritical acceptance of “truths” on the Internet borne of purveyors only interested in persuasive rhetoric and listeners who do not really care to have their biases changed but accept whatever cherries keep them comfortable and which must be true by reason of wide Internet repetition of same.

 

[MikeHammer]

A simple backtracking of the story reveals it originates from Antonio Socci, a Pope Francis critic, favorite of radical Traditionalists and purveyor of Fatima conspiracies.
Written for lurkers.

 

[FollowChrist34]

As one who has actually read all of Dante (presumably you refer to “Inferno”) … I don’t think so.

One of President Kennedy’s favorite quotations was based upon an interpretation of Dante’s Inferno. As Robert Kennedy explained in 1964, “President Kennedy’s favorite quote was really from Dante, ‘The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.’” This supposed quotation is not actually in Dante’s work, but is based upon a similar one. In the Inferno, Dante and his guide Virgil, on their way to Hell, pass by a group of dead souls outside the entrance to Hell. These individuals, when alive, remained neutral at a time of great moral decision. Virgil explains to Dante that these souls cannot enter either Heaven or Hell because they did not choose one side or another. They are therefore worse than the greatest sinners in Hell because they are repugnant to both God and Satan alike, and have been left to mourn their fate as insignificant beings neither hailed nor cursed in life or death, endlessly travailing below Heaven but outside of Hell. This scene occurs in the **third canto of the Inferno **(the following is a translation from the original written in the Italian vernacular):

Here sighs and lamentations and loud cries
were echoing across the starless air,
so that, as soon as I [Dante] set out, I wept.

Strange utterances, horrible pronouncements,
accents of anger, words of suffering,
and voice shrill and faints, and beating hands -

All went to make a tumult that will whirl
forever through that turbid, timeless air,
like sand that eddies when a whirlwind swirls.

And I - my head oppressed by horror - said:
“Master [Virgil], what is it that I hear? Who are
those people so defeated by their pain?”

**And he to me: "This miserable way
is taken by the sorry souls of those
who lived without disgrace and without praise.

They now commingle with the coward angels,
the company of those who were not rebels
nor faithful to their God, but stood apart.
**
The heavens, that their beauty not be lessened,
have cast them out, nor will deep Hell receive them -
even the wicked cannot glory in them."

And I: “What is it, master, that oppresses
these souls, compelling them to wail so loud?”
He answered: "I shall tell you in few words.

Those who are here can place no hope in death,
and their blind life is so abject that they
are envious of every other fate.

The world will let no fame of theirs endure;
both justice and compassion must disdain them;
let us not talk of them, but look and pass."

And I, looking more closely, saw a banner
that, as it wheeled about, raced on - so quick
that any respite seemed unsuited to it.

Behind that banner trailed so long a file
of people - I should never have believed
that death could have unmade so many souls.

**After I had identified a few,
I saw and recognized the shade of him
who made, through cowardice, the great refusal.

At once I understood with certainty:
this company constrained the cowardly,
hateful to God and to His enemies.

These wretched ones, who never were alive,
went naked and were stung again, again
by horseflies and by wasps that circled them.
**
**The insects streaked their faces with their blood,
which, mingled with their tears, fell at their feet,
where it was gathered up by sickening worms.
**

jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/JFK-Fast-Facts/Dante.aspx

But…have you read all of the Divine Comedy??? That’s the real question.

 

[twf]

Right, I think you are correct. Of course the East disputes the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Far be it from me to opine on that. I can see both sides to be honest. The Pope as Bishop of Rome is head of the largest, oldest part of the original Church. I have struggled with (and basicallly rejected) the idea that any human being, be he the ‘Vicar of Christ’ or not is infallible. There are very rare instances as you state where this concept of ‘infallibility’ even appropriately applies. And it does serve a purpose - you can argue it has held the Roman Catholic Church together to now. But what of now? That is what makes this so tragic really. I guess there is still some hope of fixing it.

Its important to remember that papal infallibility is, as I understand it, simply a special exercise of the Church’s general infallibility. Typically the gift of infallibility is exercised by the bishops as a whole. In rare cases the Pope, as protos among that most sacred college, can exercise infallibility. Of course it isn’t revelation or inspiration…its simply an assurance that the Pope nor bishops as a whole will solemnly bind the Church to error.
I am referring to infallibility in the context of teaching faith and morals. I won’t get into the added dimension of canonization of saints.

 

[JPUSC]

Trust in pope Francis! He knows things that are well beyond us! Pope Francis is very gospel orientated.

Trust in GOD and His Commandments.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[MikeHammer]

Trust in GOD and His Commandments.

If you’re leaving the Catholic Church, why do you care?
Become a fundamentalist, you make a career out of bashing the Pope.

 

[twf]

If you’re leaving the Catholic Church, why do you care?
Become a fundamentalist, you make a career out of bashing the Pope.

“Become a fundamentalist…” We should never give up on our brethren who may be struggling with their faith.

 

[MikeHammer]

“Become a fundamentalist…” We should never give up on our brethren who may be struggling with their faith.

I don’t think he’s ‘struggling’. Look at his posting history.

 

[truetofaith]

This is a gross distortion of the issue. The controversy is over whether the divorced and remarried may be readmitted to the sacraments under certain conditions.

I thought it was a question about divorced Catholics not just people living together.