Posted on 10/11/2014 11:12:06 AM PDT by ebb tide
The Vatican just announced that Pope Francis has named six additional prelates to help write the revised relatio for the Synod of Bishops, to be released Monday. At the risk of oversimplifying, they all seem to be on the popes wavelength when it comes to promoting pastoral mercy.
They will assist Cardinal Peter Erdo, the primary drafter of the relatio, and two other synod officials, in the task of summing up the first week of spirited synod debate in a document that will form the basis for future discussion.
Sources in Rome view the revised relatio as the key document going forward, and there is particular interest in how it treats some of the more controversial issues at the synod, including proposals to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to the sacraments.
The papal appointees to the drafting group are:
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Vaticans Pontifical Council for Culture. Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, D.C. Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina and one of the popes top theological advisors. Archbishop Carlos Aguiar Retes of Mexico, president of CELAM, the Latin American bishops council. Archbishop Peter Kang U-Il of South Korea. Father Adolfo Nicolás Pachón of Spain, superior general of the Jesuit order.
It appears to me that this has already happened in all but formally taking action, given the rampant dislike of Francis that we see here on the FR religion forum by Roman Catholics. Vatican II, too.
Please. Learn before you speak in the subject. Otherwise, your intent is to draw division, which is not what Christ would want. You know this.
Akin says --- that is wrong, for it can as well be interpreted that there are many more...
But as usual on these pages, it does appear that some wish to have most everything both ways, as in even ordinary magesterium is also considered infallible in it's teachings, but papal encyclicals (for instance) which teach on faith and morals can be downplayed(?) if any portion of the contents ever prove embarrassing.
Some split the baby even further and talk about alleged distinction between what is held [see The Meaning of Papal Infallibility, Thomas J. Shanahan, S.J.] and what must be believed.
How many preztels are in that box?
I do not agree the following is unadulterated, unvarnished truth itself (but the papacy sure as shooting does -- at least did on March 17, 1993), from;
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930317en.html
The Successor of Peter Teaches Infallibly ... The magisterial function of bishops, then, is strictly tied to that of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, the conciliar text goes on aptly to say:
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking" (LG 25).
This supreme authority of the papal Magisterium, to which the term apostolic has been traditionally reserved, even in its ordinary exercise derives from the institutional fact that the Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Peter in the mission of teaching, strengthening his brothers, and guaranteeing that the Church's preaching conforms to the "deposit of faith" of the apostles and of Christ's teaching. However, it also stems from the conviction, developed in Christian tradition, that the Bishop of Rome is also the heir to Peter in the charism of special assistance that Jesus promised him when he said: "I have prayed for you" (Lk 22:32). This signifies the Holy Spirit's continual help in the whole exercise of the teaching mission, meant to explain revealed truth and its consequences in human life.
For this reason the Second Vatican Council states that all the Pope's teaching should be listened to and accepted, even when it is not given ex cathedra but is proposed in the ordinary exercise of his Magisterium with the manifest intention of declaring, recalling and confirming the doctrine of faith. It is a consequence of the institutional fact and spiritual inheritance that completes the dimensions of the succession to Peter. ...
The example on this thread of how concept of infallibility is spoken of one way, when there are yet a few other ways to "hold to" or believe in the thing/condition which can be raised at any one time (according to whichever is most convenient it seems), is one of the reasons many outsiders cannot get past the fact that Rome and Romanists do seem to speak out of both sides of the face at once on this issue, and a few others...
As James White(?) put it, "what Rome giveth with one fork of it's tongue, it taketh away with the other"
I’ve obviously missed an important piece of the Synod thread. Will someone be kind enough to advise me as to just what the “revised relate” is? It clearly is an important term in this Synod, but it’s not one I’ve heard before.
After this action Im now beginning to question the popes competency. Any competent leader who sets up an obviously political committee to reach a clearly intended conclusion, would have the good sense to know who he should put on the committee and who he should leave off, long before he sets it up.
In this case it appears that the pope is now recognizing (a week into the deliberations) that he doesnt have the votes. Astounding! It seems that he now sees no alternative but to stack the deck while everyone is watching. How embarrassing. I presume hes simply saying that it really doesnt make any difference as to what people think. He has his modernist bishops in his pocket and the secular press in his corner. What more does he need?
Perhaps one day he just might find out.
One thing: You can’t accuse these Catholic FReepers of “papalotry.”
Not "whatever" in this instance...for I just proved how wrong your own comment in #18 was --- why it was, showing how it was [wrong], providing links in support of what I said, even with myself not needing to necessarily agree with all of the info found at those links to do it!
Yeah, you lose this round.
If you find that uncomfortable, then [cough, cough] don't be tearing into individual freepers here, getting crude with them, and I'll leave things alone myself...
I turned you off with:
“Akin says-—”
No, that is not correct either.
Your comment #18 still stands -- stands defeated, anyway, and stands as proof one can get away with rude comments the likes of which I once had deleted, simply for having used the same phrase -- but without the added "you are so good at it" additional layer of intended insult.
So round two goes to me also, and I didn't have to lift a finger.
Meanwhile, the "the moderator is unfair meme" is more of a forum disruption game than anything.
Sore losers blame the refs...
Your own loss, for there was much more than link to Akin. But then you may have already known about all the layers of various claims to "infallibility" beyond that being applied simply to the words of a pope?
Then again, in that one link from the Vatican, as to the words of a pope needing to be believed...there wasn't much of any talk of
That's actually pretty funny.
I didn’t say, or at least I didn’t mean to say, that the Popes have taught infallibly only three times. The Pope, the bishops, all priests, and all Catholics, in fact, teach and believe infallibly when they teach and believe what the Church has always taught and always believed.
I’m not talking about niggling controversies or messy situations (such as when the state has interfered with the Church’s freedom to govern or teach), but the main outline—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Councils, etc.
Whatever, dude. Rock on.
I think it should be spelled “papalatry.”
No worries. I know all about papal infallibility and there are no “layers”.
As for how many infallible statements popes have uttered, well that is impossible to say looking back. How many times have the popes quoted scripture? How many times have they quoted the canons of general councils? How many times have they merely applied the foundational principles of the Catholic faith without any change or alteration? These would all be infallible. If I say, right now, Christ is Lord, then I do so without any possibility of error, and so have said something infallible. However, none of what I say is guaranteed to be so, and therefore I do not personally enjoy the charism of infallibility. I can, with hindsight, be found to be absolutely unerring in something I say, but that means nothing about me or my place on earth. The Church, and by extension the Holy Father, has the promise of infallibility, but only under very specific situations, and that allows us to be certain of what the Church teaches. So, yes, popes can be said to have spoken infallibly many times, but only rarely can we say we know without any doubt that they are infallible merely because they said it. There are ex cathedra pronouncements (including the canonisation of saints), and also when they, like any bishop, can be said to be "authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, ... are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held." These latter, however, are not what most people are speaking about when discussing infallible pronouncements because they are not peculiar to the papacy and so not specifically "papal infallibility."
et; (may we call you ET?)
No layers?
Too funny.
Just look at all the shadings in the links I provided, paying attention to the over-wrapping "layer" in the Vatican link, then consider the little mini lecture I received in the comment immediately below you own...which begins with the view that I am conflating authority and infallibility-- as if there is no overlap to those?
Who's to say where 'conflating' begins...when the descriptions can often be rather fluid.
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.