Why do some Catholics have a problem with Pope Francis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Baguette
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JanSobieskiIII said:
Not just anti-catholic, anti religion. The majority were free masons/deists that rejected the idea of a personal God.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And I think that point is often overlooked these days in an effort sugarcoat their background. As if establishing the new country somehow excused the fact that they were part of a satanic cult.
 
I think we are all Cafeteria Catholics at heart. Rebellion is in human nature. It takes a constant renewal to humility to listen and be the student instead of being a student grading the teacher.

Pope Francis is not a modernist. That sort of term is one of the most mis-used, along side “liberal”. He believes in objective morality. He is therefore, by definition, not a modernist. Yes, he agrees with a lot of what Americans consider to be liberal issues, but only because Catholic teaching aligns with these liberal issues. When he is judged for being a liberal, then the one judging is the one who should receive the failing grade for choosing political posturing over faith.
 
omgriley said:
You’re right. Specifically, Pope Gregory XVI condemned them in Mirari Vos (1832) before Leo XIII built upon it. He did not specifically mention the United States, but it’s obvious he was describing such a society.
Click to expand...
Miriari Vos condemned an absolute conception of those freedoms (e.g. “freedom to publish any writings whatever”), but not any freedom to do those things absolutely. As far as rights go, say speech or to publish, they are to be kept “within the limits of the moral order and the common good” (St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 12). Sometimes, permitting freedom that is not strictly limited to the truth is necessary for the common good.

This is why Leo XIII, in his encyclical Libertas, states that in some circumstances, “for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil” and in Immortale Dei, with respect to religion, (after warning against indifferentism in principle) said the Church “does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State.” At the time, the US did not have such absolute freedoms (it had always been a bit more moderate than continental Liberalism) and its freedoms were treated by Leo XIII as the kind of “custom” he described above and as justifiable under a common good analysis given the circumstances (which were not ideal). Americanism took things that may have been justified given the circumstances and intended to make them universal principles for civil and ecclesiastical society.
omgriley said:
…As defined by the Church. I think it is of import to note that separation of Church and State (even done withing an orbit of competence) is already an imposition upon the rights of the Church. What you’re saying is essentially true. However, with regard to “completely disregard the true religion” is important. Because when the State passes judgement on anything pertaining to morality, it must be subject to the judgement of the Church.

Pius IX says in Quanta Cura:
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on how one defines “separation.” I think separation is good as described in Immortale Dei 13 and bad in the sense of Quanta Cura 4 (see also CCC 2244). Certainly, the Church can pass judgment in this regard (see CCC 2246), but I think it flows from the direct relationship between civil authority and God (see CCC 1899) and indirectly with that of the Church, who is the custodian of God’s law. The civil power is subject to the laws of God like anyone else and therefore to divine law as handed on and interpreted by the Church. It seems to me the Church has long ago rejected those “less separate” theories that suggested that the civil power’s authority was mediated by the Church or exercised on behalf of the Church.

continued…
 
Last edited:
continue from above…
omgriley said:
St. Thomas, along with the various popes and the tradition of the Church have say that civil governments exist for the happiness of the citizens --i.e., the virtue of it’s citizens. What the Pope is saying here is that because both civil governments and the Church pass judgement on matters of morals, it falls on the Church to pass judgement on whether the State’s conduct is in accord with the Natural Law and the Divine Positive Law. This can’t be done when the State sets itself up as the standard of morality. It becomes a usurpation of the rights of the Church.
Click to expand...
Certainly. I would say it usurps more than the rights of the Church, but the rights of God–it makes itself God and, as the CCC notes, such regimes “arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny” (2244) which only God has. Just to elaborate on what you’ve noted, the Church’s Magisterium has phrased the reason civil government exists to be to serve the common good (see e.g. Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 5, St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 54, CCC 1898). The common good establishes the state’s orbit of authority, including it’s limits (see e.g. Immortale Dei 13). As you note, civil authority’s conception of the common good cannot be positivist or naturalist (aka “Liberal”), but rather must measure itself against the objective truth about God and man, including the true religion, and take into account man’s supernatural end and well-being (see eg. Bl. Pius IX, Quanta Cura 3, St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 57-59, CCC 1924-1925, 2105, 2109, 2244).
 
Last edited:
He said what needed to be said for the Truth to last through time for all generations to see
 
A friend of mine who has turned into a radical fundamentalist Catholic, dislikes Pope Francis and has told me so.

He now accepts anything negative about Pope Francis.

The last time I had breakfast with him, he handed me a picture of Pope Francis dressed in the ritual robe of a high-ranking Free Mason.

Along with the photo, he had links to Church Militant and some other far right sights with posts about Pope Francis being a heretic.

Of course he loves Donald Trump and also told me of the Hermit of Loreto’s prediction in 1981, that Donald Trump would be elected president and bring the American people back to God.

I told him he was right, Trump is bringing people to their knees 😉

He’s gotten so bad, I may not be having breakfast with him for a while.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
A friend of mine who has turned into a radical fundamentalist Catholic, dislikes Pope Francis and has told me so.

He now accepts anything negative about Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
This reminded me of a passage from St. Peter Damian–basically, if you’re too much of a fault-finder, you’re eventually going to make a false accusation:
It is only too true that he who customarily takes pleasure in reviling the failings of others will not avoid sinning himself, since even if he is zealous in practicing justice, at some times he will have to fall into the snares of slander.
-Peter Damian, Letter 44
Click to expand...
 
Curious11 said:
Sedevacantists are heretics then?
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, no. They are in schism with the Catholic Church. @(name removed by moderator) continues to insist the contrary.
“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” --CCC 2089
Click to expand...
The Sedevacantists are Schismatics, not Heretics.
 
Last edited:
I really don’t understand why this bothers you so much. A duck is a duck, and a schism is a schism.

Like what, exactly?
 
Last edited:
I don’t dislike Pope Francis, but I’m not thrilled with his “lets shake stuff up” style.

Of the people I know who have issues with him (including some priests), the issue is this:

He’s publicly accepting of a lot of debate and dialog regarding a number of subjects that Pope John Paul II (or BXVI - but mostly JPII) put to bed. Esp Veritatis Splendor & Humanae Vitae.

I think Patrick Madrid kind of sums this up pretty well with his talk about Saint John Paul II’s document Veritatis Splendor . While Patrick doesn’t talk about the Pope, he does talk about priests/bishops/etc who are pushing agenda that go against Veritatis Splendor. My point, most of the people how have issue with Pope Francis is really because under Pope Francis the proponent of changing (or ignoring) Veritatis Splendor have become bold in their public talks, and the Holy Father has given them room to dialog.


starting at minute 43, 9 seconds

I pray I’m making sense.

NOTE: I DID NOT say that Pope Francis agrees with everything some priests/bishops are pushing for. I’m simply saying by allowing “dialog” the internal enemies of Veritatis Splendor & Humanae Vitae for that matter have become as loud as they were prior to the Pontificate of St. John Paul II.

God bless
 
Last edited:
“Sede vecante” literally means “The chair is vacant”. Sedevacantism is the belief that the current pope is illegitimate and the Church is currently without a pontiff. Strictly speaking this is not heresy, it is schism.

This belief has nothing to do with the indefectibility of the Church. Indefectibility is the “imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time.” I.e., there can be no Great Apostasy. It does not mean that there cannot be a pope at certain times or for certain periods of time.
 
To play Devil’s Advocate:

Jesus says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. He never said there will always be a Pope. The Church is fine and alive. Isn’t it presumptuous to believe that God always needs a Pope to be around? If God can work outside of the Sacraments, can’t he work without a Pope for a period of time? Would it not be a display of His glory and power?
 
In answer to the original question, I don’t know why some Catholics have a problem with him. Does he sometimes make us uncomfortable? Yeah. Does he sometimes say things that cause us to research and find answers? These are not bad things. Has he actually changed any church doctrine? No. I am liking the challenges he presents to us. I am liking them a lot.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top