What Would You Most Like Pope Francis To Do?

[TimSpalding]

Right. I was agreeing with you. (Absent the context it might look like I’m saying it’s all infallible.)

I’d go a lot farther. The Catechism is a useful summary of the faith, primarily intended for the purpose of—wait for it—catechism. But a map of India is not India, still less a simplified map written for people who’ve never visited India. A lot of lay Catholics today have elevated the Catechism to a status it simply does not deserve.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well, you’re wrong on the Catechism. Obviously it includes much that is infallible.

Whom are you addressing here?

 

[TimSpalding]

the entire moral law proclaimed by the Church is without error

But we don’t always know the extent of that. If serious papal pronouncements about morality are ipso facto part of the inerrant moral law, then slavery is right and just, charging interest a crime against humanity, democracy a heresy, and the Jews the most wretched villains on earth.

 

[Moore11]

Tim,
This is one of the posts that I was referencing, which I accidentally conflated with my earlier thoughts. In fact it distinguishes encyclicals from other documents. I’ll just quote part of it here as further evidence of my good will and self-correction:

[emphasis mine there, Tim.]

JR has further elaborated elsewhere (repeated, that is) that the entire moral law proclaimed by the Church is without error. I was merely making the point that the linguistic equivalency of infallible and inerrant is not the ecclesiastical equivalency. A proclamation can be wthout error and yet not have been issued Ex Cathedra.

Sorry about the confusion.

I can see that point. But it does not contradict the Truth that many many teachings are infallible when they meet the criteria. Originally the teaching in question was male only priesthood. Which a Pope has declared the Church does not have the AUTHORITY to change. The only thing the Church does not have the authority to change is something that would be infallible.

 

[einna]

Gave 3 Reasons WHY only men can be Priest

1. Ordiantion is a SACRAMENT Instituted by Christ therefore noone; not the Pope and not the MAgisterium can change it
2. Because Christ is Male gender so to MUST [absolutely] His Priest: This IS MY Body; This IS MY Blood is literal. Male to male is essential for the Sacrament of the Eucharist
3. By God’s FREEWILL choice: Adam, Noah; Moses, David’ Jacob; the Prophets and Judges; John the Baptist’ The Apostles and Jesus Himself are all male gender; Therefore Sacred Tradition too supports this mandated position. END OF DISCUSSION! The CHURCH HAS SPOKEN:thumbsup:

God Bless,
pat/PJM

1. Women participate in other sacraments.
2. If male to male is essential for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, why can women receive it.
   3.Besides Jesus, are any of the men you mention held in higher regard the Mary?

Again, not for women priests, just wondering. Also, who declared these things on infallibility, Jesus himself or men thought to be inspired by God.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Right. I was agreeing with you. (Absent the context it might look like I’m saying it’s all infallible.)

I’d go a lot farther. The Catechism is a useful summary of the faith, primarily intended for the purpose of—wait for it—catechism. But a map of India is not India, still less a simplified map written for people who’ve never visited India. A lot of Catholics today have elevated the Catechism to a status it simply does not deserve.

I’ll bring this out of my own thoughts, and refer you again to JReducation, a Franciscan Brother and frequent poster on CAF:

That’s a technical question. The CCC contains infallible dogmas and moral laws. It also contains canon laws and disciplines that are not infallible, but must be observed by every Catholic, because the Church has the authority to command assent of the faithful.

The CCC is a Megisterial Document that containes infallible doctrines and morals, as well as canons and other disciplinary laws that are binding on all Catholics. No part of the Catechism is up to debate. As Pope Benedict has said, the more you dissent with the Catechism the further you get from communion with the Church. That’s a thought worth pondering.

That being said, one should read the CCC with the comentary. It’s very helpful, because it points you to previous catechism, documents and other writings that are behind the statements in the CCC. It also explains why something has been added to a previous statement. Ignatius Press puts out a very good commentary.

Once the Sacred Congregation for the Faith and the Pope jointly declare that the Catechism contains what every Catholic should believe, then there is no argument. In any case, neither the pope nor the Sacred Congregation will entertain any argument.

There have been questions asked of the Sacred Congregation on certain points in the Catechism, because the wording is awkward or does not translate well. They have been very gracious in explaining and even went as far as issuing a second education to try and make it clearer.

However, what the Holy Father [Pope BXVI] is saying and has said all along, when he was the Prefect and after he became pope, is that Catholics must assent to everything that is in the catechism.

The more you dissent the closer you get to being out of communion with the Church. If you reach a point where you reject the whole thing, then you’ve just thought yourself right out of the Catholic Church.

This is where dissent is dangerous, because as human beings we tend to think “one more thing” and “one more thing” and “one more thing” and before you know it, the whole thing is out the window.

To be on the safe side, you take the entire thing at face value and you trust that the Congregation for the Faith and the Pope who promulgated the Cathechism know what they’re talking about , better than we do.

I for one and not going to pit my pea size brain against Joseph Ratzinger.

 

[einna]

I can see that point. But it does not contradict the Truth that many many teachings are infallible when they meet the criteria. Originally the teaching was male only priesthood. Which a Pope has declared the Church does not have the AUTHORITY to change, the only thing the Church does not have the authority to change is something that is infallible.

If a Pope declared the Church does not have the authority to change something, why can another Pope then declare that it can be change, other than those things declared infallible?
Just wondering.

 

[TimSpalding]

Can you say that another way? I’m getting lost in the grammar.

 

[Elizabeth502]

1. Women participate in other sacraments.
2. If male to male is essential for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, why can women receive it.
   3.Besides Jesus, are any of the men you mention held in higher regard the Mary?

Again, not for women priests, just wondering. Also, who declared these things on infallibility, Jesus himself or men thought to be inspired by God.

Nine pages on this topic, with abundant references, here, and why it can’t be changed:

catholic.com/search/content/women%20priests

 

[Moore11]

Gave 3 Reasons WHY only men can be Priest

1. Ordiantion is a SACRAMENT Instituted by Christ therefore noone; not the Pope and not the MAgisterium can change it
2. Because Christ is Male gender so to MUST [absolutely] His Priest: This IS MY Body; This IS MY Blood is literal. Male to male is essential for the Sacrament of the Eucharist
3. By God’s FREEWILL choice: Adam, Noah; Moses, David’ Jacob; the Prophets and Judges; John the Baptist’ The Apostles and Jesus Himself are all male gender; Therefore Sacred Tradition too supports this mandated position. END OF DISCUSSION! The CHURCH HAS SPOKEN:thumbsup:

God Bless,
pat/PJM

1. Women participate in other sacraments.
2. If male to male is essential for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, why can women receive it.
   3.Besides Jesus, are any of the men you mention held in higher regard the Mary?

Again, not for women priests, just wondering. Also, who declared these things on infallibility, Jesus himself or men thought to be inspired by God.

1. Yes! You are correct women participate in all 7 sacraments. INCLUDING HOLY ORDERS. They just cannot be priests. Just like I cannot give birth.
2. Anyone receives. That makes no gender distinction. The confection of the Eucharist does happen to have some male unnecessary characteristics. There are many other reasons.
3. I dont understand the point.
   Mary was not a priest. She did not confect the Eucharist. The fact that Jesus did not make his own mother a priest should speak VOLUMES about this issue.

I do not mean this to sound snarky so please do not take it that way but you seem awfully hostile to this issue for someone who does not proclaim to be pro ordination of women. Do you not understand what a priest is? Do you not understand what it is to be a woman? I am honestly asking because it matters in what part of the answer you need to understand.

There are so many references and early Church writings on this. There is also many many threads on CAF about just this subject. You can read these and if you still struggle with the Catholic faith in this matter, post a thread of your own about it.

Good luck and good studying to you. I find every day that when I investigate a question and educate myself I learn more and more and grow more and more in the Fatih that I love and would die for.

 

[TimSpalding]

But not everything found in a Catholic Answers search is infallible

women participate in all 7 sacraments. INCLUDING HOLY ORDERS

We should do female deacons. (Cue sparks.)

 

[clem456]

I would like him to present a life in imitation of Christ that will draw people to likewise imitate Christ. A life lived like that has a power apart from words and policies. I am thinking of Mother Teresa as well. From what we know about Pope Francis It seems he is this kind of disciple.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But not everything found in a Catholic Answers search is infallible

I didn’t say that, did I? The poster asked for authoritative teaching. The C.A. main site (not everything in the discussion forum section of C.A.) refers readers to definitive documents about why a female Catholic priesthood is an impossibility, permanently. That is her question, and the charitable thing is to direct her to Answers to her question.

 

[einna]

Does anyone else ever feel like the CCC and the ALL the teachings of the church get a little overwhelming with all the minute details, this being infallible but not that, and the added statements or clarifications of things.

Like the Declaration of Independence, it would take forever to become as educated and as knowledgeable as one would need to be to be a proficient student of the words.

I am hoping this Pope will start with the basics. I cannot imagine Jesus himself writing all these doctrine and making things so complicated. What happen to our faith being centered around the sacraments, Mass, and the Ten Commandments? I know there are those of you that will say that if I was true to my faith I would be an avid student of all the teachings, but for those of us raising children in this world, we are just trying to raise good decent people who help those in need, and to keep them safe and healthy, which hard work 24/7.

Go ahead, let me have it!

 

[einna]

Moore11:
I do not mean this to sound snarky so please do not take it that way but you seem awfully hostile to this issue for someone who does not proclaim to be pro ordination of women. Do you not understand what a priest is? Do you not understand what it is to be a woman? I am honestly asking because it matters in what part of the answer you need to understand.

There are so many references and early Church writings on this. There is also many many threads on CAF about just this subject. You can read these and if you still struggle with the Catholic faith in this matter, post a thread of your own about it.

Good luck and good studying to you. I find every day that when I investigate a question and educate myself I learn more and more and grow more and more in the Fatih that I love and would die for.

I have felt no hostility in any of my post, so I am sorry it must be in how you are taking it. I haven’t seen other threads on this yet, but I will be on the look out. I was just try to understand, so sorry I wasted your time. I am not pro women priest, but you can believe that or not.

 

[Arandur]

I would like to see him knock some heads together . Take conservative Catholics (like myself) and convict us ever more of the need to live for others and take the intellectual truths of Christ to our hearts that we may witness them more fully to the world. Take liberal Catholics and convict them that there is no love apart from Truth, and that they must embrace the Truth and preach Christ in his fullness if they are to truly love people. And, as Sirach/Wisdom says in the Mass reading for today, that will mean calling sin out and being hated by the world for it.

What strikes me with many of the questions like the OP (as evidenced by the currently-debated topic of women priests) is that the worldly attacks against the Church and desires for it to “change” are primarily focused on matters of morality and what the modern world perceives as “liberty” and “equality” (but is really slavery and de-humanization).

The thing that sets the Catholic Church apart from every other religion is its consistency and extreme care to hold to the truth in matters of faith and morals–a guarantee of the Holy Spirit, and truly evidenced by the Spirit in the mere continuance of the Church and its teachings (“Reason #1 that the Conclave of Cardinals is exciting: The world is about to witness a great and visible work of the Holy Spirit”).

 

[10thCrusader]

Whilst the priorities of certain tasks will undoubtedly vary throughout the time Pope Francis resides in the Vatican, as Catholics what would you most like to see Pope Francis do? This could be anything from I’d like to see him engage with this issue to, I’d like to see him try out some dance moves in St. Peter’s square.

As an Anglican I’d like to see Pope Francis engage more with different branches of Christianity and consider the varied views on a number of subjects the Catholic church, in my opinion, has been sometimes quite stubborn about.

I would like to see Pope Francis preach, teach, and uphold all the doctrines of the Holy Faith with untiring vigor. I would like to see him crush all heresies that have spread through the Church

I also think there is a great opportunity to gain some unity with Anglicans. The Old High Church Rite per the 1928, 1789, and 1662 missals is very similar to the Roman Rite. With a few small wording changes, they could fold right back into the Catholic Church. The Low Church is more problematic, as they have women priests.

 

[OraLabora]

I also think there is a great opportunity to gain some unity with Anglicans. The Old High Church Rite per the 1928, 1789, and 1662 missals is very similar to the Roman Rite. With a few small wording changes, they could fold right back into the Catholic Church. The Low Church is more problematic, as they have women priests.

Isn’t this what the Anglican Ordinariate already does or attempts to do?

I’m not sure what more the Holy Father can do other than open the door and invite them in. Ultimately, it’s up to the Anglicans to accept the invitation. I think the door has already been opened by Benedict XVI, and about all Pope Francis can do is reiterate the invitation and hold out a welcoming hand.

 

[TimSpalding]

I didn’t say that, did I?

Hence my

Does anyone else ever feel like the CCC and the ALL the teachings of the church get a little overwhelming with all the minute details, this being infallible but not that, and the added statements or clarifications of things.

Exactly and pace against the notion that “No part of the Catechism is up to debate,” here’s an example of part that is.

It’s an ancient teaching of the church that Mary is “ever virgin” (aeiparthenos). This is clearly an infallible teaching.

Yet, as Protestants love to remind us, the New Testament often mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.

The Greek east—both Orthodox and now Uniate—solves this by positing that Joseph was married before, and that these are half-brothers and sisters, an argument deriving from * Protoevangelium of James* and by no means at odds with how Greek used the terms. In the west since Jerome, however, the solution was that by the rather ordinary Greek words “brother” and “sister” the inspired authors meant cousins. (You can tell which explanation seems more credible to me.)

The Catechism rather unnecessarily wades into the question, siding with the Jerome. It is every Catholic required to believe not only that Mary is “ever virgin” but that Jerome’s argument is right and that of the Greek fathers wrong? Of course not. The Catechism combines infallible teaching with non-infallible explanation.

I would note that the the Catholic Answers page on this ( catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin ) states that:

The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

This is charitable, and I agree that the church allows it, but the text of the Catechism itself gives only Jerome’s view.

 

[Arandur]

Does anyone else ever feel like the CCC and the ALL the teachings of the church get a little overwhelming with all the minute details, this being infallible but not that, and the added statements or clarifications of things.

Like the Declaration of Independence, it would take forever to become as educated and as knowledgeable as one would need to be to be a proficient student of the words.

I am hoping this Pope will start with the basics. I cannot imagine Jesus himself writing all these doctrine and making things so complicated. What happen to our faith being centered around the sacraments, Mass, and the Ten Commandments? I know there are those of you that will say that if I was true to my faith I would be an avid student of all the teachings, but for those of us raising children in this world, we are just trying to raise good decent people who help those in need, and to keep them safe and healthy, which hard work 24/7.

Go ahead, let me have it!

The CCC is structured around athe Ten Commandments with a strong focus on the Sacraments and the Mass…

It’s purpose is a fuller explanation of the truths that Jesus taught than we have in just the Bible (and to clarify many of the things of the Scriptures that have been erroneously interpreted by many in the past). We have learned a lot from the Holy Spirit in 2000 years.

As for Jesus not being so “complicated…” He followed the Law of his day (much more complicated and demanding compared to the 5 Precepts of the Church). He also shared his wisdom since at least 12 years old, and most especially in 3 years of ministry–the vast majority of his teaching is NOT recorded in the Scriptures, but is maintained in Tradition. The Bible is longer than the CCC, by the way.

I love that the truth of God is infinitely deep; that we will never stop learning or discovering it. The CCC is just an introduction.

That said, it’s not required of everyone to be a scholar. Many of our Saints are very simple, with little learning. God approaches each of us in different ways.

Oh, and the CCC is made more “approachable” in the YouCat (Youth Catechism; a question and answer format) and in the Adult Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (deeper than the YouCat, but in a more readable prose style than the CCC). Perhaps you might have better luck with one of those presentations of the faith?