And that’s the million dollar question: How is it a Magisterial teaching? As I’ve previously mentioned, the CCC is not the Ordinary Magisterium, and its writings are not dogmatic by virtue of being in there. If Pope Francis wanted to make this dogma, he can pronounce it Ex Cathedra, and his language in the CCC makes no such attempts to do so. So then how is it Magisterial?
Are you claiming that we are only required to believe that which has been proclaimed ex cathedra?
I heard of nothing as such when promulgating the new teaching on the DP - I didn’t hear of any cardinals or bishops being consulted.
It also works because his successor can immediately strike that executive order/revision out.
I don’t see a conflict. I said the “just use.” The Roman Catechism explained how the just use is pro-life. Obviously it’s unjust use is not pro-life! I understand that a couple recent Popes and many bishops nowadays don’t believe the current circumstances justify it. Given my own limited knowledge (and lesser rank in the Church), I have no problem deferring to their prudential judgment.
The Roman Catechism provides a general principle on the just use of the death penalty and its relation to the 5th Commandment that is fixed. The CCC instead provides a prudential judgment directed at applying that principle to certain circumstances in a specific time. It is not intended to be an abstract principle or irreformable (the fact that that paragraph has been reformed multiple times demonstrates this; it may be reformed again in the future).
So, you’re on the record as not buying into the whole “Vicar of Christ” thing?
The thesis that "my opinion" = "fact" does not give one the jurisdiction to judge those one does not have the jurisdiction to judge.
This is really over-the-top postulation…is this meant to be tongue-in-cheek?Let’s add option #4: Pope Francis is being blackmailed/threatened against his will and is being made to say/do all these crazy things… maybe something really terrible, so he has to choose the lesser evil which is what we’re getting now… Could be all a trick? Making it ‘look like’ Francis is against Tradition and against Burke and traditional bishops by imposing on him to act/not act on issues, to create division in the Church? What he really wants is us to ‘read between the lines’ and increase our Faith!!! For the majority of us lay people we really don’t have the means to know otherwise… Lol, looking at the glass half-full… we gotta pray peeps…
You’re saying the Pope should tolerate parts of the church who insist on separation into factions? Why?
Yes. He’s a vigilant priest, and that is a good thing, but sometimes the watchdog barks up questionable trees.
It’s Fr. Z, so maybe a few hours on the shooting range. Something, though.
Deciding Cardinal Burke’s standing before the Throne, good or bad, is about our pay grade. (I would only go so far as to say I somehow doubt there will be a cause for canonization opened.)
Over 12,000 Jesuit priests in the world, and you can only think of one? Whoever could you be referring to? (Not a Jesuit who was made a CARDINAL let’s hope?)
I feel the same. I thought it was the promulgation of the new translation of the Mass that set his mind loose in other directions.
Good question.
Yep
Oh, gosh, yes, there were nationality theories–the “Rottweiler” analogy comes to mind–living under Communism theories, all that…
Not everybody is convinced that Constantine was a good influence on the course of the papacy…
Ah, yes, it’s the Traditionalist Catholics who want the Church to be separated into factions. Of course. Nevermind the many Traditionalists who will not go to the TLM outside of diocesan approval and so lobby their bishops for it as is their right, or the fact that offer their own money and time to make such legitimate communities possible, they are the ones who want to fracture the Church.
Don’t use the word “faction” to refer to people who do not intend to be a faction, then.
You’re the one who described us as wanting to split the Church into factions despite the multiple communities that do exist who try to stay within the Church. If their work is not to your satisfaction, my not using that word will not change your mind.
Benedictine and Dominican charisms are not the same as say, the FSSP’s mission. I wouldn’t say they describe their attempts to revive and keep the TLM alive as a charism per se, but I could be wrong. The differences aren’t a problem as you said. But lumping the FSSP in with groups like the SSPV does no one any favors, and only upsets people in both.
Vicar means deputy. As in assistant. Not owner. He too is bound by the Churches teaching is not free to change it as he pleases. Do you want a Church that changes drastically every few years depending on whether a conservative or a liberal pope is in?
That is incorrect. I was referring to this post, which is the one that used the word “factions.” I think that is a word to be avoided, both in self-reference and in reference to others.
The Church is a living body of billions of souls, not a museum piece. The office of Vicar of Christ cannot become a conservancy project. If it were, then by rights our Mass ought to still be in Greek. Since it is not, we know that things can and will change. (And trust me, I’m quite sure the Pope knows the Church is not going to change according to his whim any more than sheep are going to be transformed into cows and ducks.)
I missed the part where I said this. Don’t get it twisted. It has been part of human nature and throughout church history where various groups have had their own ideas on what is right and what direction the Church should take and there are disagreements about this within the barque of Peter. That said I stand by my belief that the Catholics that care about fidelity to the deposit of faith are treated with suspicion or flat out ignored when they raise concerns, yet the hetordox and those that water things down get treated with kid gloves or are even favored and promoted.