Rogue Pope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP gave the answer — there would be a schism with some percentage of the church declaring the pope a heretic and picking a new guy for themselves. I would actually be really curious to see how that would break down. I was a devout Catholic for the first 45 years of my life but I just feel like the Church is so moribund that I cannot find any inspiration or grace in it at the moment.

I’m also a bit curious whether Pp that posted on doctrine is the SSPX poster that pops up everytime there’s a Catholic thread. He has strong views.

We essentially have a schism in the Anglican community in the US now. If you want to know more, look at the litigation that resulted in The Falls Church Episcopal and The Falls Church Anglican and their separate communities. Litigation over the historic property went all the way up to the Supreme Court -- it was over the ordination of a gay bishop in the Episcopal Church.

It would be more of a catastrophic earthquake in the RC church if a pope were to 'go rogue" like this, though.

The Anglicans are a small part of what was the Episcopal church of America, though. It's not directly comparable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Pope who endorsed the admission of women to Holy Orders and/or procured abortion and/or sacramental marriage between persons of the same sex would by that act become a material heretic and ipsofacto cease to be Pope.

The pope can modify celibacy requirements for secular priests (those not a part of a religious order with a separate vow of chastity) at any time. Celibacy is a discipline, not an ontological part of the priestly state.

When has that ever happened? And over the last 2000 years there have been some pretty bad popes.

And as bad as they were personally, even they knew better than to try tampering with doctrine

Popes and the Church have made plenty of changes to doctrine over the years. The Earth revolving around the sun and the Immaculate Conception and mass in vernacular languages, are all examples.

The declaration of the Immaculate Conception as a dogma merely formalized longstanding belief; it was not new doctrine.

Allowing the Mass in the vernacular was a change in discipline, not doctrine. When the Latin Mass began, Latin WAS the vernacular.

The theory that the sun revolves around the earth was never dogmatically declared. Galileo’s problems went beyond that issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of the rule made by Pooes were rogue.

Abortion was not a sin until 1500’s and many did not agree, and still don’t.

Priest only became celibate to protect the churches assets from wives and children. Agains pope made that rogue rule not Jesus.

You are incorrect.

Abortion has always been declared a grave sin by the Church. And as for “many” disagreeing, dogmatic discernment is not the product of a popularity vote.

While it was not formally required in the universal church until the Second Lateran Council in 1239, the discipline of celibacy (not to be confused with the evangelical counsel of chastity pursuant to the vows taken by members of religious orders) grew out of a preexisting and very old tradition that clerics should abstain from sexual relations. Even in the Eastern Church, where priests are permitted to marry, Bishops come only from among the celibate clergy.

The fundamentalist doctrine that anything that Jesus is not reported to have said is somehow “rogue” is erroneous and unsupportable. Jesus specifically gave his Apostles the authority to bind and to loose and to govern the Church. Scripture (which itself says it is incomplete) has always been interpreted in light of tradition.

[Anonymous]

From a cradle Catholic - I am over Catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Pope who endorsed the admission of women to Holy Orders and/or procured abortion and/or sacramental marriage between persons of the same sex would by that act become a material heretic and ipsofacto cease to be Pope.

The pope can modify celibacy requirements for secular priests (those not a part of a religious order with a separate vow of chastity) at any time. Celibacy is a discipline, not an ontological part of the priestly state.

This is not technically true. All of these issues are debated and some have been different within the Church at different times in history.

The Pope’s ability to modify the discipline of celibacy is debated? I think not.

The gravely sinful nature of abortion debated? Hardly.

The ontological inability to confer Holy Orders on a woman debated? No. That has been firmly settled long before it was definitively (and one can argue based on phrasing infallibly) rejected by John Paul II.

The impossibility to confect the sacrament of matrimony between persons of the same sex debated? Certainly not.

There are people who would like to debate these matters now, and who hope to obscure the longstanding clarity of doctrine in these areas, but the questions are closed and more or less always have been. There is room for discussion as to how such matters should be approached pastorally, which is what Pope Francis is doing.

[Anonymous]

I would cast a yay vote for nuns taking on more traditional roles that were always deferred to priests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would cast a yay vote for nuns taking on more traditional roles that were always deferred to priests.

Good luck finding any nuns to do that.

And if you’ve been paying attention since the mid to late 60’s, it would be pretty obvious that a great many responsibilities formerly borne by clergy have long shifted to others, both religious and lay persons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think PP gave the answer — there would be a schism with some percentage of the church declaring the pope a heretic and picking a new guy for themselves. I would actually be really curious to see how that would break down. I was a devout Catholic for the first 45 years of my life but I just feel like the Church is so moribund that I cannot find any inspiration or grace in it at the moment.

I’m also a bit curious whether Pp that posted on doctrine is the SSPX poster that pops up everytime there’s a Catholic thread. He has strong views.

So what are you now? Former Catholic? Episcopalian? Atheist? Something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would cast a yay vote for nuns taking on more traditional roles that were always deferred to priests.

Good luck finding any nuns to do that.

And if you’ve been paying attention since the mid to late 60’s, it would be pretty obvious that a great many responsibilities formerly borne by clergy have long shifted to others, both religious and lay persons.

Isn't that because there aren't enough priests to go around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the rule made by Pooes were rogue.

Abortion was not a sin until 1500’s and many did not agree, and still don’t.

Priest only became celibate to protect the churches assets from wives and children. Agains pope made that rogue rule not Jesus.

You are incorrect.

Abortion has always been declared a grave sin by the Church. And as for “many” disagreeing, dogmatic discernment is not the product of a popularity vote.

While it was not formally required in the universal church until the Second Lateran Council in 1239, the discipline of celibacy (not to be confused with the evangelical counsel of chastity pursuant to the vows taken by members of religious orders) grew out of a preexisting and very old tradition that clerics should abstain from sexual relations. Even in the Eastern Church, where priests are permitted to marry, Bishops come only from among the celibate clergy.

The fundamentalist doctrine that anything that Jesus is not reported to have said is somehow “rogue” is erroneous and unsupportable. Jesus specifically gave his Apostles the authority to bind and to loose and to govern the Church. Scripture (which itself says it is incomplete) has always been interpreted in light of tradition.

You are categorically incorrect but you’ve been socialized to believe what you wrote.

None of it is true it’s just what your opinion.

[Anonymous]

In Roman Catholic theology, the doctrine that the pope, acting as supreme teacher and under certain conditions, cannot err when he teaches in matters of faith or morals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the rule made by Pooes were rogue.

Abortion was not a sin until 1500’s and many did not agree, and still don’t.

Priest only became celibate to protect the churches assets from wives and children. Agains pope made that rogue rule not Jesus.

You are incorrect.

Abortion has always been declared a grave sin by the Church. And as for “many” disagreeing, dogmatic discernment is not the product of a popularity vote.

While it was not formally required in the universal church until the Second Lateran Council in 1239, the discipline of celibacy (not to be confused with the evangelical counsel of chastity pursuant to the vows taken by members of religious orders) grew out of a preexisting and very old tradition that clerics should abstain from sexual relations. Even in the Eastern Church, where priests are permitted to marry, Bishops come only from among the celibate clergy.

The fundamentalist doctrine that anything that Jesus is not reported to have said is somehow “rogue” is erroneous and unsupportable. Jesus specifically gave his Apostles the authority to bind and to loose and to govern the Church. Scripture (which itself says it is incomplete) has always been interpreted in light of tradition.

The Church did change its position on when life begins. So it did change its position on abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Pope who endorsed the admission of women to Holy Orders and/or procured abortion and/or sacramental marriage between persons of the same sex would by that act become a material heretic and ipsofacto cease to be Pope.

The pope can modify celibacy requirements for secular priests (those not a part of a religious order with a separate vow of chastity) at any time. Celibacy is a discipline, not an ontological part of the priestly state.

This is not technically true. All of these issues are debated and some have been different within the Church at different times in history.

The Pope’s ability to modify the discipline of celibacy is debated? I think not.

The gravely sinful nature of abortion debated? Hardly.

The ontological inability to confer Holy Orders on a woman debated? No. That has been firmly settled long before it was definitively (and one can argue based on phrasing infallibly) rejected by John Paul II.

The impossibility to confect the sacrament of matrimony between persons of the same sex debated? Certainly not.

There are people who would like to debate these matters now, and who hope to obscure the longstanding clarity of doctrine in these areas, but the questions are closed and more or less always have been. There is room for discussion as to how such matters should be approached pastorally, which is what Pope Francis is doing.

You need to do a bit more research on the Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the rule made by Pooes were rogue.

Abortion was not a sin until 1500’s and many did not agree, and still don’t.

Priest only became celibate to protect the churches assets from wives and children. Agains pope made that rogue rule not Jesus.

You are incorrect.

Abortion has always been declared a grave sin by the Church. And as for “many” disagreeing, dogmatic discernment is not the product of a popularity vote.

While it was not formally required in the universal church until the Second Lateran Council in 1239, the discipline of celibacy (not to be confused with the evangelical counsel of chastity pursuant to the vows taken by members of religious orders) grew out of a preexisting and very old tradition that clerics should abstain from sexual relations. Even in the Eastern Church, where priests are permitted to marry, Bishops come only from among the celibate clergy.

The fundamentalist doctrine that anything that Jesus is not reported to have said is somehow “rogue” is erroneous and unsupportable. Jesus specifically gave his Apostles the authority to bind and to loose and to govern the Church. Scripture (which itself says it is incomplete) has always been interpreted in light of tradition.

The Church did change its position on when life begins. So it did change its position on abortion.

No. Abortion has always been considered a grave sin, regardless of theological debates about ensoulment, quickening, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the rule made by Pooes were rogue.

Abortion was not a sin until 1500’s and many did not agree, and still don’t.

Priest only became celibate to protect the churches assets from wives and children. Agains pope made that rogue rule not Jesus.

You are incorrect.

Abortion has always been declared a grave sin by the Church. And as for “many” disagreeing, dogmatic discernment is not the product of a popularity vote.

While it was not formally required in the universal church until the Second Lateran Council in 1239, the discipline of celibacy (not to be confused with the evangelical counsel of chastity pursuant to the vows taken by members of religious orders) grew out of a preexisting and very old tradition that clerics should abstain from sexual relations. Even in the Eastern Church, where priests are permitted to marry, Bishops come only from among the celibate clergy.

The fundamentalist doctrine that anything that Jesus is not reported to have said is somehow “rogue” is erroneous and unsupportable. Jesus specifically gave his Apostles the authority to bind and to loose and to govern the Church. Scripture (which itself says it is incomplete) has always been interpreted in light of tradition.

You are categorically incorrect but you’ve been socialized to believe what you wrote.

None of it is true it’s just what your opinion.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. And reciting a relativist incantation can’t change that.