Why are there mutterings of discontent within the Catholic clergy towards our Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter englands123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You do really like to convince other people, don’t you? I’ve already said you, I disagree with other catholics, and Judas’ fate isn’t a dogma, so I am free to believe whatever I want. I don’t care how past popes composed the liturgy, it isn’t a dogma.
 
Yes. I’m not trying to convince you its dogma. I’ve actually entered the discussion to say the same thing.

My point, is that it’s much more of a modern interpretation of Scripture, that it’s possible Judas was redeemed, yet still died by suicide.

It’s actually quite a powerful testimony of Saints, popes, and doctors of the Church, which interpret Scripture as conveying him condemned.

That’s all.

But I agree, you arent obligated to believe that.

Similarly, we’re not obligated to believe canonized Saints (or any particular Saint) are in heaven (apart from His mother). The principle works both ways.
 
Last edited:
AlbMagno said:
Judas’ fate isn’t a dogma, so I am free to believe whatever I want.
Click to expand...
Not being a dogma means that you cannot be charged with canonical heresy, but there can still be moral guilt in neglecting truth, called the sin of incredulity. Not every revealed truth is defined as a dogma, and actually the definition is usually given after a truth is contradicted. Even before a definition, someone neglecting truth in bad faith is guilty of sin.

If you mean that you are free believe what you consider true in good faith, then there is probably no guilt of sin.
 
Last edited:
I believe it’s obvious that if I said I believed it, I believe it in good faith.
 
“a controlling regime” lol . Use euphemisms much? It is letting atheist Chinese communists “have a say” -in choosing clergy / bishops. Let that sink in. Communists helping choose bishops. Ouch.
 
Joseph159 said:
Let that sink in. Communists helping choose bishops.
Click to expand...
“Sinking in” does not mean changing opinions, as much as you may think. The Holy Father made a decision that will expand the Sacraments in China. You act like there is no up side to the Holy Eucharist being available. I am not experienced in diplomacy, but the Pope Francis had the unenviable task of leading a nation divided by violent political factions, with priests ministering to both sides. Therefore, his experience is greater than mine, and this sort of problem is in his wheelhouse.
 
pnewton said:
The Holy Father made a decision that will expand the Sacraments in China. You act like there is no up side to the Holy Eucharist being available
Click to expand...
The communist government in China has historically been extremely hostile towards Catholics.
I am uncertain people will attend the sacraments more knowing the priest reports to the government.
If anything, this may just drive the people away.
 
This is mine. But I will say it anyway.
How can one claim disappearances of people who supposedly never met?
What do you do? Disclose the “ secret meetings “ and all their participants?
I can see quite clearly how the light protects us. In the open field.
But again, this is strictly mine.
 
Last edited:
Dominusvobiscum1 said:
. Historically it is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Historically, it may one day be a good thing again. I just do not see the comparisons of modern popes, say the last two centuries, with that of those in the feudal middle ages. The historical differences are too vast. The Church has some horrible history, but that history is not current, or even modern, history.
 
I still do not understand how you can gloss over the fact that we now have Chinese communists having a say in choosing bishops. I see it as yet another example of a group capitulating to essentially a bully (Chinese govt.). People are very afraid of offending the Chinese communist govt., and apparently that fear has spread to the Vatican.
 
Last edited:
I would say we are missing a conclusive statement and one opinion that matters.
Your quote from Saint Pope John Paul II is sound on his part. Jesus statement is not conclusive. And yes he was himself a fan of von Balthazar. Interestingly, it is von Balthazar on Holy Saturday that offers Judas unique possibility. The idea of Christ’s light in Hell. A lasting light.
SPJPII had interesting ideas on the subject. His earlier writings are not as guarded as the latter which is understandable as Pope. He maintained the Doctrinal possibility of Hell. And he offered candor of his difficulty conceiving of it never the less.
I don’t agree with your " modernist" origin of this idea.
We continue to pray for all souls in our liturgy. We have an All Souls Day. And these things would be error if we were certain a soul was damned.
These ideas of a wider, not narrower salvation are biblical and were( Also) in fact believed by Church fathers. I would say there is a robust disagreement. HE WILL BE ALL IN ALL passages are joined with the countering narrow limited salvation others ascribe to.
Church fathers and Doctors who viewed wider salvation ideas included Theophilus of Antioch, St Clement of Alexandria and ( Origen his pupil),
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Jerome( before the Origen Issues), Esubious, Didymus the Blind , Saint Isaac , and arguably others like Ambrose of Milan and my favorite, Maximus the Confessor.
In later times, Julian of Norwich( All will be well, All will be well, and all manner of things will be well)
You actually could say Saint Augustine’s influence put his finger on the scale in advancing the wider vision of damnation.
2 Pet 3:9…The heart of God is such that desires that none shall perish.
Or Saint Irenaeus of Lyons( AGAINST HERASIES, book III,23.6)…Questioning interminable or irremediable evil( Adam).
There is really no argument to be made about modernism. Only modern forms of reinvigorated theology. In candor we don’t know. We are permitted to vigorously hope.
I would recommend David Bentley Hart’s new book, but it is modern and you seem to have a bias.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
We continue to pray for all souls in our liturgy. We have an All Souls Day. And these things would be error if we were certain a soul was damned.
Click to expand...
All Souls’ Day is more properly the commemoration of the all the faithful departed. It refers to people dead in God’s grace. Liturgical prayers have a similar condition.
 
We exclude no names from the prayer. Not even Judas. That is my point. I am not claiming to know where Judas went.
 
Last edited:
Woe to that man by whom the son of man is betrayed!

Excerpted from: RORATE CÆLI: Damned Lies: On the Destiny of Judas Iscariot

From the traditional Collect for Holy Thursday ( Missale Romanum 1962), it is clear past all doubt that the centuries-old lex orandi of the Church teaches that Judas is lost, condemned forever to the fires of hell:
O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: grant unto us the full fruit of Thy clemency; that even as in His Passion our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each retribution according to his merits, so having cleared away our former guilt, he may bestow on us the grace of His resurrection: Who with Thee liveth and reigneth…
Click to expand...
 
And yet Saint Pope John Paul II tells us that language is not conclusive.
I don’t pretend certitude but I do understand the ramifications.
Two schools of thought. In one, God’s grace and mercy is viewed from the perspective of scarcity. Countless Catholics adhere knowingly or unknowingly.
The other idea is superabundance of Grace and mercy.
Intended or not, it shapes who God is to us and most every other faith issue.
I read the Adulteress passage and I read no call to repent. I read no rebuke, or condemnation. I hear no contrition by the Adulteress. Just some good advice to go and sin no more.( Jesus might not be around the next time they gather?).
And
I see gentle kindness and a declaration that he would not condemn her. It seems Jesus in scripture reserved his anger for those who exhibited a lack of humility. And even here, ever the physician, as it was the right medicine more than an ode to Divine Justice.
You can find many who are sure of where Judas is. Their interpretation of " narrow gate" passages are robust. I wonder why.
In the worst sense, there can be a mindset that makes scarcity and exclusivity attractive. We are all succeptible at times. I try to remind myself this is our inadequacy not God’s. I try to remind myself that I cannot accept any notion that we can find a positive if in heaven, knowing those we love are in hell. If you follow the arguments some lead to a theory of some amnesia - like protection of the redeemed. But that would alter the very person in heaven. Their love itself altered? As finite beings this erases who they are. ( And so on).
We are so interwoven in relationship, pretty soon the scenario of sadness includes everyone.
Divine Union is the destination! Gregory of Nyssa and his “corporate” salvation presented the arguments systematically. ( Father of Fathers). The theology is not modernist in origin. ( Or Origen)
 
Last edited:
Punishment does not mean eternal damnation by the way. There is no doubt Judas has been punished. He betrayed the Lord, his friend, and an innocent man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top