Rogue Pope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG - a disagreement on the religion forum!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG - a disagreement on the religion forum!

internecine warfare amongst the believers even

[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. t

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.

Abortion has been debated for centuries in the Catholic Church. Gregory XIV even allowed first trimester abortions

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=nd_naturallaw_forum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG - a disagreement on the religion forum!

internecine warfare amongst the believers even

Been going on the centuries

[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.

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. t

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.

Abortion has been debated for centuries in the Catholic Church. Gregory XIV even allowed first trimester abortions

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=nd_naturallaw_forum

The article cited does not say that. And even the relevant discussion therein relates to historic opinions on the relative culpability of “therapeutic” abortions committed in defense of the mother’s life, not the wholesale abortion on demand at issue today. Opinions at the time turned on the issue of “ensoulment” and were colored by scientific understanding far more primitive than today’s. The “ensoulment” controversy notwithstanding abortion was even then considered a grave sin, as it always had been, even if not technically “homicide” for the purpose of certain canonical penalties, most notably whether an individual would be considered irregular for the exercise of holy orders. The author of the article appears in any event to have been trained as a philosopher not a theologian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG - a disagreement on the religion forum!

internecine warfare amongst the believers even

Probably the ex-Catholic who’s on here 24/7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG - a disagreement on the religion forum!

internecine warfare amongst the believers even

Been going on the centuries

The first Christian church was Roman Catholic, right? That's what we learned in Sunday school.

[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.

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

Paralyzed by indecision.

[Anonymous]

When I saw the thread title I thought it was going to be about Pope Francis, who is considered rogue by most in the Church establishment. For shocking things like saying Catholic women who had abortions could be forgiven, that God loves gay people, that atheists could enter the kingdom of heaven.

I doubt very much there will be another Pope as rogue as Francis anytime soon. I suspect the next elected Pope will be far more conservative than he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I saw the thread title I thought it was going to be about Pope Francis, who is considered rogue by most in the Church establishment. For shocking things like saying Catholic women who had abortions could be forgiven, that God loves gay people, that atheists could enter the kingdom of heaven.

I doubt very much there will be another Pope as rogue as Francis anytime soon. I suspect the next elected Pope will be far more conservative than he is.

I've often wondered how he got elected in the first place - or how he got to be Cardinal with such progressive ideas.

As I recall, he doesn't live in the papal apartments - too fancy for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I saw the thread title I thought it was going to be about Pope Francis, who is considered rogue by most in the Church establishment. For shocking things like saying Catholic women who had abortions could be forgiven, that God loves gay people, that atheists could enter the kingdom of heaven.

I doubt very much there will be another Pope as rogue as Francis anytime soon. I suspect the next elected Pope will be far more conservative than he is.

I've often wondered how he got elected in the first place - or how he got to be Cardinal with such progressive ideas.

As I recall, he doesn't live in the papal apartments - too fancy for him.

The availability of forgiveness and absolution to the truly penitent for abortion or indeed any sin certainly is nothing new with Francis. The Church has long made clear that God’s love is absolute and that the problem with sexual and indeed any other sin is the sun not the person. While the Church rejects “universalism” (the idea that all will be saved no matter what), Vatican II made clear that salvation is available to all who seek the truth with a sincere heart. As for the Vatican apartments and various other things like carrying his own briefcase (and grabbing it back from anyone who tries to carry it for him, Francis likes symbolic gestures. And if you look at what he actually does, rather than just what he says or is reported to say, once all the “accompanying” and “dialogue” and “synodality” is finished, he may not be all that “progressive” in the greater scheme of things.

As for how he got elected, one at least partial explanation is that some critical mass of Cardinals (reported by some to have had McCarrick in the lead) may have hoped to repeat in Latin America what happened in Poland and the Eastern bloc when John Paul was elected. The US bishops have long looked to culturally-Catholic Latin American immigrants to fill pews and coffers left empty by others, despite the inroads of various Evangelical and other sects in that part of the world. The strategy has not been a rousing success. Cultural Catholicism does not always translate into active practice, particularly in a new country where parish life (even with language and other accommodations) looks very different than it did in people’s countries of origin.

[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.

This "black and white" absolute thinking peppered with language marketed by a hypocritical patriarchy fearful of losing its power is precisely what's causing droves of people to leave the RCC for other more inclusive denominations or to become unchurched entirely.

[Anonymous]

There are married Roman Catholic priests now - the CC welcomed episcopal and anglican priests who were already married who wanted to move over to RC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are married Roman Catholic priests now - the CC welcomed episcopal and anglican priests who were already married who wanted to move over to RC

This is correct, although the men involved were (re)ordained because the Church does not recognize Anglican/Episcopal ordination.

There also are (and have been from the beginning) Eastern Rite (Byzantine) priests who are married.

Celibacy in the Latin Church is a discipline/traditional practice. It is not integral to the priesthood. Chastity as an Evangelical Counsel/religious vow is, however, integral to that state of life.

The Church continues to discuss allowing diocesan (secular/non-order) priests to marry. The most recent proposal was to ordain “viri selecti” (selected, older men) in remote areas where the regular priests rarely visit. As far as I know, that hasn’t gone anywhere. There are rare historical examples of mature married men being ordained by dispensation with the consent of their wives and an agreement to live separately, but those don’t provide much of an experiential database. The “sheep dipped” Anglicans/Episcopals probably will provide more over time.

Whether a married Latin priesthood would be helpful, neutral, or even harmful is an open question. It probably would swell the ranks at least initially (after the required time for selection and training). But the relative quality of men likely to be recruited might vary. The first probably would come from the ranks of Permanent Deacons, who are a mixed bag and typically older than the current ordinands. The Latin Church also has no tradition of priest’s wives, who face unique challenges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be a dream come true.

Are you Catholic?

Yes.