Why do some Catholics have a problem with Pope Francis?

[CilladeRoma]

That is not very specific.
Can you give concrete examples of what you mean, please?

There is nothing that I know of that shows him to put politics ahead of doctrine, but he is putting pastoral needs of his flock, his WHOLE flock, at the forefront of his ministry. That, IMHO, is a very good thing.

 

[deacon3b]

I didn’t realize that JP II and Benedict were not on the pastoral side as much as Francis. Where is your gauge for this? Give examples for each of the popes that make them less on the pastoral side or more on the pastoral side. Your comment starts out fine. Then you went polarizing when you compared the popes and used pastoral.

 

[CilladeRoma]

What are you talking about??
I am not talking or referring in any way, shape or form to our 2 previous Popes. I never implied or intended to imply that they were not “pastoral”, and I would appreciate it if you do not put words in my mouth.

 

[deacon3b]

I find it confusing that AL (infamous footnote) contradicts JP II FC (paragraph 84) which says civilly divorced and in a second union without annulment can never receive communion. JP II goes on to explain why in detail which includes the fact of public scandal (marriage is a public and publicly lived sacrament that mirrors CHrist’s fidelity to his bride, the church) Both Documents (Amoris Laetitia and Familiaris Consortio) are apostolic exhortations. One written by a Pope the other written by a pope and saint. ( In know sainthood doesn’t mean infallibility) The two exhortations say the opposite of each other regarding communion for the divorced, remmarried and in a second union without prior annulment) One of the popes has to be correct and one has to be wrong. (I don’t buy the grey area argument as someone is either sacramentally married to someone or they are not and the annulment process helps discern that) The odd thing is AL quotes FC quite a few times…? I will say one thing. AL the situation is explained in a footnote and in FC the situation is explained in a paragraph. Not sure that matters but its very confusing. Since JP II doesn’t mince words and is clear cut in his definition whereas AL is very ambiguous on the matter I’m going to have to assume the teaching is clear cut and defined in the way St. JP II presents it.

 

[deacon3b]

Why? Because too many people get their information about what Pope Francis says from very biased sources.

Pope Francis is just as “Catholic” as JPII and Benedict were.
His focus though, is more on the “pastoral side” of things, which makes sense considering where he is from.

Is more on the “pastoral side” of things Than who? You used the word “more” the opposite of more is less. What else can you mean by this statement? Bob and Fred are both good guys. Bob’s focus is more on being nice. Doesn’t that mean bob focus’ more on being nice or seems to than Fred?

 

[omgriley]

Saying that you disagree with the Pope is not Schism.

I simply do not like Pope Francis.

Except it’s not as “simple” as you’re now painting it.

You said, and I quote:

Because he is taking every Catholic doctrine and throwing it out the window. He is a disgrace to the chair of Peter.

That’s not an example of one who simply dislikes the Pope. That’s outright slander and detraction, and none of it is true. Good to know that you’re not a Sedevacantist, though.

 

[CilladeRoma]

WOW! You really are trying to stretch out meaning in my words.
And where did I use the word more? Not in any post you are quoting. Which just proves to me that you did not actually read what I wrote, but read what you thought I wrote, which is kind of ironic, considering the topic of this thread.

 

[pnewton]

I find it confusing that AL (infamous footnote) contradicts JP II FC (paragraph 84) which says civilly divorced and in a second union without annulment can never receive communion.

I do not see the contradiction, but a change. St. John Paul did not use the word “never” as he cannot bind a successor in any matter of practice, even if the practice has been going on for a thousand years. It is not odd that Amoris Laetitia quotes Familiaris Consortio. Of course it does. It is build upon it.

Which brings me to the underlying issue of people who think somehow St. Francis just misses what real Catholicism teaches. This difficulty extends beyond judging the Pope to judging all Catholics who do not agree with our own understanding of some doctrine. When Jesus meets us in judgement and passes out his theology final exam (to use Peter Kreeft’s image), a 70 won’t get us to Heaven and less than 70 to Hell. But if it did, we might be surprised who makes the higher marks and how low our own mark is.

 

[omgriley]

Since when is dialogue and caring about marginalized people supporting a “LGBT ideology”.

Maybe, instead of listening to what others say about him, people should actually try reading his books and listening to him speak.

Except the Church isn’t marginalizing homosexuals, nor anyone who suffer from SSA. Yet Father Martin insists otherwise.

Whether you like him or not, Fr. Martin is a Catholic priest in good standing with the Society of Jesus and the Church. He does not support any ideology that is not Catholic and to say otherwise is wrong.

Au contraire…

Fr. Martin has made himself a celebrity by publicly criticizing Church teaching on sexuality and attempting to normalize homosexual behavior. He has argued many times that homosexuals are not required to live chaste lives. Fr. Martin has claimed that Catholics should “reverence” gay “marriage” and called such unions “loving act” He has also called Traditionalist Catholics who disagree with so-called gay marriage “homophobic”.

He has used his social media presence to support transgenderism for children. He claimed that a local parish should allow parents to register their children for religious education under their “preferred” gender.

He’s accepted awards from “New Ways Ministry,” a group which has been condemned by the Vatican for its dissident views on the all male priesthood, among other things.

Need I go on?

Father Martin has stated that he longs for the day in which homosexuals may kiss their partners during mass.

He publicly supports dissident homosexual priest Fr. Greg Boyle (who also promotes women “priests”) and claims that anyone opposed to him are involved in “missionaries of hate.”

Just because Fr. James Martin has not been laicized doesn’t mean that he’s a “good priest” or that he supports Catholic theology.

 

[philipl]

“Stand off between good and evil” Can you back this up?

 

[HarryStotle]

If we want to work for positive change …

Please define “positive change” in specific terms, not generalities.

One of the hallmarks of modernism is that new is by definition better merely because it is new.

How would we recognize “better” by qualities more in line with Christ than with progressives who are merely promoting change for novelty’s sake?

What are THOSE qualities that define better, exactly?

 

[tweedlealice]

Dear Baguette,
Well, it has to do w End times prophecies.
St.Malachi prophesied all the Popes. Look up: St. Malachi’s prophecy.
Pope Francis is our last Pope. Could be more like Mayan calendar reset on 12/24/2017. St. Malachi went to sleep??? Chuckle.
A global world order will occur. Open borders w one currency. The European Union w the Euro…
How can we not like open borders and one currency? I’ve noted how third world countries are in pitiful state. Ppl living in huts. Sending factories to third world countries, create jobs for them. Jobs get money flowing, ppl get out of huts… one currency stops insane juggling of currency. BUT, if one govt controls one currency, it makes us vulnerable. Our Federal Reserve has done away w $500.00 and $1000.00 bills. I couldn’t use that high of a bill. So, we still have $50.00 and $100.00 bills. Rumor has it to get rid of those, leaving only $20.00, $10.00, $5.00.00 and $1.00 bills. Rumor has it the goal is to use cards. No cash. The sign of the Beast is 666. Cards can be coded. If you don’t submit to leader=no card, no food.
PopeFrancis is an open border and one currency fella. He, in showing mercy, offered communion to divorced Catholics. That upset some ppl.
His comment,” Who am I to judge?” was upsetting. Our church is THE VOICE for INSTRUCTION! Judgement comes from God.
Someone has to be brave to deliver God’s message to His creation.
His response to victims of Priests scandal has changed. The one Bishop, who assaulted boys is condemned to prayer and penance! Two Bishops around him that worked very close w criminal, are being promoted. Parishoners feel those two Bishops knew of his guilt. They want those Priests held accountable. Our Pope, had a short response to those complaining. Something about NO EVIDENCE! Did they look??
Plus, our Pope cancelled a plan to rid church of abusive Priests. Why is guilty priest not turned over to Police??
Those are some issues.
God, please, let Pope Francis feel Your love. Send him Your wisdom. Grace him to be strong.
In Jesus name
Tweedlealice

 

[HarryStotle]

Which brings me to the underlying issue of people who think somehow St. Francis just misses what real Catholicism teaches. This difficulty extends beyond judging the Pope to judging all Catholics who do not agree with our own understanding of some doctrine.

Okay, except that if “our own understanding” is always completely nullified in deference to someone else, that means each of us as individuals can never make any progress except by deferring to someone else’s understanding. Seems counter-productive.

I don’t believe I am wrong merely because I am me and not someone else. Neither do I think I am correct merely because it is me that think it.

There must be some way of determining when our own understanding is closer or farther from the truth than merely with reference to someone else’s understanding.

Christ’s teaching, Apostolic Tradition, Magisterial teaching and the habitual practice of the Church for two millennia ought to be reliable guideposts.

The problem is where individuals, in the midst of the current grip of moral relativism and post-modernism, are now claiming the Church has been off the mark in its practice for two thousand years and their opinion is, therefore, a better determiner.

Well, no. Let’s look deeply into the psychological, spiritual, ethical, and intellectual factors that are driving that call for change at this time in history and see if those claims bear out. A period of spiritual instability as we have right now is not a good time to overhaul Church teaching and practice. It is time to more deeply understand what Christ and the Church have upheld for two thousand years.

This is not the right climate for major change – we haven’t properly resolved the fallout from Vatican II to go a further step down what appears to be a rather slippery slope.

 

[omgriley]

St.Malachi prophesied all the Popes. Look up: St. Malachi’s prophecy.

The St. Malachy “prophesies” are largely considered to be a forgery from 1,500s.

 

[tweedlealice]

I didn’t say, I believed in them. I love it, when centuries later, we can find out something is a forgery.
It’s possible if newly found documents have been located
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[omgriley]

Sorry, I only skimmed your post and got the impression that you believed in it. My mistake.

 

[tweedlealice]

No problem. It’s good to know about he forgery. I studied end times. The Bible tells us signs for which to look.
But, all Dooms Day nay sayers, didn’t apply one rule of God’s. That is: JERUSALEM MUST BE CAPITOL OF JERUSALEM.
It’s interesting, to keep in back of mind. We want to be one of the lampholders that are prepared, for the Bridegroom, w extra oil.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[deacon3b]

I have never felt St. Francis misses what real Catholicsim. I do wonder Are you referring to St. Frances De Sales, St. Francis Xavier, St. Francis of Assisi or St. Francis of Paola.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

 

[pnewton]

Except the Church isn’t marginalizing homosexuals, nor anyone who suffer from SSA. Yet Father Martin insists otherwise.

I have been on this board too long to believe this. The Church is also its members, by definition. Fr. Martin denies no doctrine, only the wording. After reading from many here who consider homosexual acts the worst sin, far and above all others, I have to agree with him that it may be time to change how we teach this. Catholics aren’t getting it. Worse, they use their own heterosexuality as a source of pride and hide from their own sin.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.

That is a quote. If you were to say it today, you would need to use the proper verb tense, “reaffirmed”. I will give ground on my “St. Francis” typo. May it be a source of pride for you.

They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.

I think this will be the doctrinal issue around which this is resolved, one way or another. We may even end up with a doctrine decided in a few years. Is it one’s objective state, or subjective state, that makes one incapable of receiving the Eucharist, not just by Church practice, but by moral law?

Even then, I would point out that the objective state is discerned by tribunal, not determined by it.

 

[pnewton]

Okay, except that if “our own understanding” is always completely nullified in deference to someone else, …
There must be some way of determining when our own understanding is closer or farther from the truth than merely with reference to someone else’s understanding.

I understand the dilemna. The solution in my opinion, in a word, is humility. We have to act according to our best opinion, while recognizing our own fallibility.

I think your point on moral relativism is a good. I had not really considered the impact of this document on the climate of moral relativism, and it is one strong argument against it. I like to post this sort of realization as a kind of marker that, yes, people can learn knew things here and these discussions need not be vain and futile (or redundant )

One final note from your post. Just because there are those who I think never give Pope Francis the proper respect his intelligence and office demands, I also know there are those that never give his detractors the same. The authority of the papal office is that of a shepherd, not a club to beat over the head of anyone who disagrees. The topic of Amoris Laetitia is not yet done, and may not be done for decades. We need to keep it civil for now.