It Always Comes Back To Christ

The person of the Pope and the Papacy are separated. Of course they are. The latter is a divinely appointed office, the former is a fallible man elected by fallible men; men who may, or may not, ask for the guidance of the Holy Ghost during a Conclave.

Therefore, logic demands that it be allowed to criticise the fallible man – harshly, if his shortcomings are so extreme as to make it necessary – without this impinging on the sacred institution. On the contrary, the Pope is criticised exactly because of the damage he causes for the sacred institution of the Papacy and, by extension, of the Church.

It is rather disingenuous, and devoid of logic, to say that those who criticise the Pope damage the Papacy. They damage the Pope's credibility as a person – particularly if he has none, as in this case – but they do it to protect the Papacy, and by extension the Church and, ultimately, Her Bridegroom, Christ.

If, therefore, anyone were to say that the Pope cannot be criticised because this damages the Papacy, this would be tantamount as to say that the person of the Pope cannot be criticised if he damages – the current occupier, actually, insults or very obviously misrepresents – God. This borders on Papolatry, and makes no sense at all. Particularly then, when at the same time all the other ranks of the Church are considered fair game for criticism, and harsh criticism whenever necessary; only not the Pope, who does pretty much the same that the others do, but with infinitely more scandal as his every word is far more widely read and listened to.

Furthermore, it is not to be seen why criticism of the Pope would damage the Papacy, but criticism of the Successors of the Apostles or of Princes of the Church would not damage the Church. The Pope isn't a demigod on earth. In fact, the actual occupier of the office insists in seeing himself as a Bishop, and calling himself that way.

Either the Church is damaged by criticism to his prelates even when they are justified, or she isn't. Either it is allowed to criticise the Pope, or it is not allowed to criticise the bishops. Compulsory blindness when the line to the Pope has been crossed has never been the Church's way. Ask St Paul. Or St Peter, come to that. I wonder how many, today, would say to Paul that he can criticise everyone and everything, but he must stop in front of Peter.

It does not make any sense to compare traditionalist Catholics to Luther. The proof of the pudding is, as always, in the… Truth.

Traditionalist Catholics would stand the test of every generation of Catholics of the past. Luther wouldn't, and neither would Francis. You measure a Catholic according to his loyalty to Christ's Truth, not to his blind refusal to criticise the Pope.

Nor can it be said that the Pope is misread, the Cardinals aren't. Kasper is wrong, but Francis who supports him isn't. Homos within the Chutch are wrong, but Francis who shamelessly and publicly defends Ricca isn't. Liturgical wreckovators are wrong, but Bergoglio committing liturgical abuses – yes, it's a liturgical abuse even if one is Pope – isn't. I could go on.

It also does not make any sense to accuse friends of the SSPX to have “left the church”. They haven't, unless one is deranged enough to think that 2,000 years of Catholicism have left the Church. Again, adherence to Truth is what counts. Admirably, the SSPX practices this adherence to Truth in everything, including their obedience to the Pope whenever possible. But like every Catholic generation of the past, they do not let their obedience become blind Papolatry. Ask John XXII, or Pope Liberius, or Pope Honorius, whether this was the thinking of Catholics of the past.

Finally, it is very disappointing that someone who has been criticised in a very charitable way should accuse his opponents of outright malice.

Firstly, it is not clear why the same accusation could not be made to the same person when he criticises, say, Cardinal Dolan. Secondly, it has no basis in logic.

I do not accuse anyone of, say, not criticising the Pope because, say, his sponsors and donors – like, say, the Opus Dei - would stop giving money to him. I understand the thinking could simply be aligned. Similia similibus solvuntur. But I am rather grated when one who takes contributions to defend a certain line – contributions out of which his own livelihood is paid – accuses of ulterior motives many bloggers – and getting more numerous – who criticise the Pope out of sincere love for Christ and His Church; after working hours and sacrificing their own free time; and without any hope of monetary reward for their effort. Gratis et amore Dei.

It is astonishing, and utterly devoid of any logic, that one who is criticised for telling the Truth about anyone but the Pope should move the same accusations to those who do the same as he does, but with more coherence, and following 2,000 years of Church history from St Paul down.

I go as far to say that when such a malicious criticism is levelled, a breach of trust has occurred.

Avoid Michael Voris' channel.

It all comes back to Christ because the pope is the Vicar of Christ and must speak the truth of Christ. If he doesn’t, then he should be reminded. Gently though, no one is perfect.

OK that is reasonable to say that as no-one is. I must admit the tone of the article makes it sound like the writer thinks of themselves as pretty close when he chooses to put the Pope alongside Luther and then alludes to his group as the continuing 2,000 year old Catholic Church, seemingly insinuating that any else is not including this Pope!

Popes are not perfect and not everything out of their mouths is infallible. Francis has said some things that are questionable to some and outright heresy to others.

That being said, he is allowed/bound to err in some things but the Holy Spirit protects him from error on faith and morals and what is binding on the faithful.

I believe him to be a good man who has made some strange statements. I don’t know if he is just misunderstood or isn’t aware of how he comes across.

There have been a couple of times he has had to come right out and restate Catholic teaching because his statements are confusing.

The best thing we can do is pray for him.

Yes thank-you. We would be wise not to trust any reporting from anything other than an official source. Whether by misunderstanding or on purpose the secular media seems to have misreported a lot of things he has said. When you go and see the original statement in context he mostly has been conservative and orthodox. The left in and out of Catholic circles were hoping that because he was from South America he would be a socialist of their own ilk. While he seems to have a heart for the poor and downtrodden he does not seem to tread the socialist path. It has amazed me even moreso though that devout Catholics have been so easily swayed to want to believe the worst. It’s almost like they want the prophetic to come true - anyway bless you for your wisdom!

It all comes back to Christ because the pope is the Vicar of Christ

The pope is a man, Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.

Which do you choose to believe? The Roman catechism, or God's Word?

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." Pg. 234, #882 ........"The Roman Pontiff... as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful..." Pg. 235, #891

______________________________________________________________________

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all."

1 Timothy 2: 5-6

Yes, he is a man.

I believe Jesus who promised the Spirit of Truth to guide the Church and by extension, His supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful. His power was given to him and is protected by Jesus whom we trust.

Pope Francis has said nothing to change Christ’s truth. He has had to clarify some things, but he has not given approval to the things his detractors seem to think he has.

Every person who believes in Christ has a pastor, whether it is the head of their denomination or themselves, they rely on a man/woman as a teacher.

Jesus is our only mediator with God, it is through Him that we have hope of salvation. The pope is His representative while we remain in this life because Jesus, the Good Shepard, has returned to His Father.

Avoid Michael Voris' channel.

They've destroyed their own credibility. Their position that it is fair for them to castigate bishops who follow their leader (e.g. the Dolan/Michael Samm debacle) while at the same time decreeing that the leader from whom they get their cues is above reproach is intellectually untenable, and their vicious fragging of other Catholics in the trenches (Matt, Vennari, et al) is frankly quite disgusting.

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.