Posted on 08/31/2018 8:04:24 PM PDT by ealgeone
Nope, you posted it and then kept trying to stir the pot. Your innocent pose is a sham.
YOU keep maintaining that Unam Sanctam means that Catholics have to do "whatever the Pope says". THAT interpretation rests SOLELY on your opinion of what Unam Sanctam means. NO Catholic theologian agrees with your interpretation, BECAUSE IT'S WRONG. I already explained to you why it's wrong according to basic moral theology, AND posted a Catholic source as evidence.
If Cardinal Burke thinks he has the right to ask the Pope pointed questions and you say he doesn't, I think I know who's right ... and it's not you.
YOU keep maintaining that Unam Sanctam means that Catholics have to do "whatever the Pope says". THAT interpretation rests SOLELY on your opinion of what Unam Sanctam means. NO Catholic theologian agrees with your interpretation, BECAUSE IT'S WRONG. I already explained to you why it's wrong according to basic moral theology, AND posted a Catholic source as evidence.
If Cardinal Burke thinks he has the right to ask the Pope pointed questions and you say he doesn't, I think I know who's right ... and it's not you.
He is not dodging, he is stirring the pot to create dissension among the faithful. He is acting in clearly bad faith.
No, they haven’t even met to consider the issue.
Dodging my challenge to provide one Catholic source that agreed with his ridiculous position.
Have you been reading the Catholic Caucus threads these days? The "faithful" are in plenty of dissension over Pope Francis all by themselves. Ealgeone posted a thread that IS of interest to non-Catholics and it comes from a Catholic source. Seems like your accusations of "pot stirring" would be better aimed at your fellow Catholics.
AND...accusing Ealgeone of "acting in clearly bad faith" makes a judgement about motive and mindreading. Perhaps your ire might be better used against those higher-ups in your church who could actually do something about the scandals?
And as usual, all you have done is tell someone thye are wrong without telling anyone what is correct.
Your say so amounts to nothing.
You’ll have to try harder to prove your point.
It doesn’t just seem. They HATE it with a passion.
Interesting problem they have here.
First, they need to decide if the Holy Spirit guided the CoC in selecting the pope in the first place.
If He didn’t then they did it contrary to the example in Scripture they like to appeal to in Acts, and the pope is merely the choice of men without God’s intervention. Which then complicates things by nullifying the claim that the Holy Spirit protects the church in the area of faith and morals.
If He did, the GOD is then repeosnible for PF and the mess he’s made. God has then given His approval to what’s going on and is allowing Francis to represent Him. Then the problem the Catholics have is that if they are fighting this God ordained pope, they are fighting God’s will for their church and being disobedient to Him by not submitting to God’s choice for them.
Did the Holy Spirit guide the College of Cardinals in selecting the pope or not?
So who in the Catholic church has the ability, right, ot authority to properly interpret papal bulls?
And where is that correct interpretation to be found?
Could you post the source for it?
Can the Church Depose an Heretical Pope? .
But the short answer is that yes a heretical Pope can be removed from the seat of Peter.
The Bishops not the Cardinals would convene an Imperfect Council to determine if the Pope has separated himself from the Church by the commission of obstinate heresy.
If it is determined that the Pope has separated himself from the Church the Imperfect Council would declare the Seat of Peter vacant and call for the election of a new pope.
In the “bad old days” of the FR religion forum, this came up quite a bit.
But at the time it was a theory, one that had plenty of counters. One gentlemen, (Doc Brian) whom I still pray for said that there was no real way to do what you said. A robber council had been tried before, and it was declared null since it didn’t have a pope involved.
But as another poster stated, removing Francis would do little. The homosexual bishops would just elect another of their members to the throne.
We have a winner.
Oz had laws, too. Again... made up by mortal men.
“He governs by the consent of the Catholic people I presume.”
I’m not catholic; but it’s my understanding that the Pope is God’s representative here in earth and thereby rules by the consent of God. I’ll leave it to Catholics to correct me if I’m wrong.
“Just set up an alternate Pope.
It’s been done in the past.”
Avignon is beautiful in the Fall.
Lots of martyred and murdered Popes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes_who_died_violently
RE: government is by consent of the governed
That is the kernel of it. A leader ultimately depends on the people he governs to do what he says. Francis’ power has diminished to a tiny fragment of its former self. It could come to the point where the papal household might even hand him over to secular authorities, or threaten to do so. I think that is what precipitated the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974, who was defiant only days before. In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether canon law has an avenue to remove him. He is going down!
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.