Posted on 12/17/2013 2:58:40 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
This is worse than all the Pope's maladroit statements in all the interviews put together.
The Pope's most valued adviser on American matters is Cardinal Sean O'Malley, of Ted Kennedy canonization fame.
Now the Pope has pushed aside Cardinal Raymond Burke in favor of the oleaginous Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, a leader among those bishops who refuse to obey Canon 915, despite the fact that disobedience to Canon 915 is ALWAYS a mortal sin.
Proving that this Pope is no judge of character.
I agree. I’m totally appalled...and worried about what he’s going to do or say next.
I wonder if he’s going to boot Cardinal Burke from the Apostolic Signatura, too.
Read for yourself how Cardinal Burke has left no possibility of doubt, none, that disobeying Canon 915 is always a mortal sin. The reason is that disobeying Canon 915 is ALWAYS to commit the sin of sacrilege against the Eucharist, and is ALWAYS to commit the sin of giving grave scandal to the public.
Cardinal Wuerl refuses to obey Canon 915.
So here we have the Pope giving an important role in the selection of bishops to a man who has been living PUBLICLY in the state of mortal sin for many years.
Read for yourself how Cardinal Burke has left no possibility of doubt, none, that disobeying Canon 915 is always a mortal sin. The reason is that disobeying Canon 915 is ALWAYS to commit the sin of sacrilege against the Eucharist, and is ALWAYS to commit the sin of giving grave scandal to the public.
Cardinal Wuerl refuses to obey Canon 915.
So here we have the Pope giving an important role in the selection of bishops to a man who has been living PUBLICLY in the state of mortal sin for many years.
i will never forget headline “pope resigns”.
i sat stunned. i have sat on the fence regarding this pope.
still watching.....
As an outsider, this Pope seems quite whacky. Maybe it is because he is from Argentina, or a Jesuit.
I suppose it isn’t up to me to Judge the Pope, but I have never believed in infallibility and I think this time he is screwing up.
Hate to say it but the Pope resembles our Liar in Chief in several ways, redistribution of wealth, and being more at home running a soup kitchen then the Catholic Church, just as Bam is a community organizer instead of leading the free world.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
Do i believe every thing Paul says?
I guess i will until some one shows me where he does not know what he is talking about.
This new pope is, like his successors back to Pope Pius XII, a character. He is yet another symptom of the sickness that has invaded and infected the Roman Catholic Church subsequent to Vatican Ii the result of which was the formation of a new religion.
This religion centers its focus on man rather than the worship of God.
This Francis is a liberation theology guy who issues forth volumes of popespeak wherein through convolution and obfuscation he dazzles the fawners who find inspired insight not in paragraphs or sentences, but in a word or two.
He appears to despise capitalism which hasn’t been around that long, but does espouse socialism which has caused the death of millions of innocents. Before capitalism there was a system whereby the formation of wealth was by pillage, murder and subjugation of the poor.
He hasn’t done anything that would have any chance of involving Papal infallibility. (A personnel assignment is certainly not an infallible act, for example.) Something for which we should be thankful, I suppose ...
Well, as RCs will be quick to point out, the pope is held to speak infallibly - w/out the possibility of error - "when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful..he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals." Which is "a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (CCC 891, 882) (Pope John XXIII once stated: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".) Rome requires "assent of faith" to these.
The college of bishops also exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."
Meaning no one can dispose a pope without his consent, and "sola singulis" even if incorrect Latin) is most supremely seen in Rome.
Thus Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Quite the system.
Roman Catholic theology divides the functions of its teaching office into that of the infallible sacred magisterium and the fallible ordinary magisterium, although the "ordinary and universal magisterium" falls under the infallible sacred magisterium, and altogether there are 3 (some say 4) levels of magisterial teaching. And different degree of assent are required relative to different levels.
Of course, RCs cannot tell you which level every teaching falls under, as there is no infallible list of all such, of even all infallible teachings, while it is held that most of what RCs believe and practice do not come from the infallble mag. And those that are may require some degree of interpretation by other levels of the magisterium, as these may, to varying degrees.
And as very few verses of Scripture have been infallibly defined, within the parameters of official RC teaching the RC has great liberty to adopt interpretations of Scripture, such as in his attempting to support Rome's traditions of men as if they were a result of Scriptural substantiation, rather than Rome's presumption as being the supreme authority.
And thus, while RCs attack private interpretation, they themselves engage in the same, and abound with disagreements, outside core essentials.
Big time.
Paul says each man must examine himself, but he doesn’t say that no one else is to make any judgment.
Canon 916 requires the communicant to examine himself.
Canon 915 says that in the case of those who obstinately persist in situations of manifest grave sin—i.e., those whose reception of Communion will cause grave scandal—Communion must be denied.
The reason for the denial of Communion is twofold: to prevent profanation of the sacrament, and to prevent grave scandal.
The ongoing grave scandal is that when pro-abortion Catholics are given Communion, the priests and bishops are declaring to the whole Church: “These people are not committing any sin by promoting abortion.” Or, the priests and bishops of the Church are saying: “Yes, these are public, grave sinners, but we don’t care—because they control government money.”
This issue, which is eating the heart out of the Church around the world, has not penetrated the Pope’s consciousness.
This issue, which is eating the heart out of the Church around the world, has not penetrated the Pope’s consciousness.
Of course, this isn’t a matter of infallibility at all.
The Church does not teach that the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from misjudging the character of people, or making unwise appointments. JPII did all those things. He praised the monster Maciel Marcial (Or was it Marcial Maciel?) as a shining example to youth. He appointed one horrid bishop after another.
The latest buzz is that “the Pope doesn’t want culture warriors” (as bishops). Translation: The Pope doesn’t want Catholics.
but I have never believed in infallibility and I think this time he is screwing up.
I also do not believe any one except Christ is infallible.
Paul accused Peter of doing wrong, if its true i have no idea but we can see that if there were one wrong there were two.
The second one would be in the telling, i am curious, do the Catholics believe The first Pope Peter was infallible?
If so do they believe Paul was also infallible? i do not believe it can be both ways.
Being about half way intelligent i would say that if Peter was infallible then Paul would in my mind be the object of suspicion.
The Catholic,s like all of the others want converts to their Church, no one will get me as a convert unless they are willing to be forthright on these matters.
Nobody thinks the Pope is impeccable, only infallible in certain specific circumstances.
If you believe that the NT is inspired, you believe that, e.g., Peter and Paul exercised a higher gift than infallibility when they wrote Scripture.
True. This one is really troubling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.