Rogue Pope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would happen if there was a Pope who just went rogue? Female clergy, clergy can marry, gay marriage, pro choice the whole enchilada.

I believe that Pope Alexander VI qualifies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would happen if there was a Pope who just went rogue? Female clergy, clergy can marry, gay marriage, pro choice the whole enchilada.

I believe that Pope Alexander VI qualifies.

Nope. As dreadful, scandalous, licentious, self-indulgent and sinful as he was, even Rodrigo Borgia didn’t dare to fool around with doctrine.

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting thread.

The biggest “Rogue” out there was Jesus Himself, who lived among the marginalized and oppressed, challenged doctrine, and was put to death for it.

The Christian Church early on developed theological explanations for Jesus’ death by saying it was necessary for our salvation.

But I wonder. When Christ comes again as foretold in Scripture, what is the Church going to do? How is the Church going to react to someone who lives among the marginalized and oppressed of today, and openly challenges the doctrine that some of us clutch so closely to the breast? How is the Church going to react to someone who preaches that we don’t have it right and calls us to something greater?

I don’t think the Church will accept Christ, just as religious leaders didn’t accept Jesus. Sadly, I think we’ll end up prioritizing our current understanding of doctrine, calling Christ “rogue” and condemning Christ for going against the teachings of the Church — all out of fear.

History has a way of repeating itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting thread.

The biggest “Rogue” out there was Jesus Himself, who lived among the marginalized and oppressed, challenged doctrine, and was put to death for it.

The Christian Church early on developed theological explanations for Jesus’ death by saying it was necessary for our salvation.

But I wonder. When Christ comes again as foretold in Scripture, what is the Church going to do? How is the Church going to react to someone who lives among the marginalized and oppressed of today, and openly challenges the doctrine that some of us clutch so closely to the breast? How is the Church going to react to someone who preaches that we don’t have it right and calls us to something greater?

I don’t think the Church will accept Christ, just as religious leaders didn’t accept Jesus. Sadly, I think we’ll end up prioritizing our current understanding of doctrine, calling Christ “rogue” and condemning Christ for going against the teachings of the Church — all out of fear.

History has a way of repeating itself.

I think the command "Go forth and multiply" is very reckless now.
Nobody knows what adjustments would be made including you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting thread.

The biggest “Rogue” out there was Jesus Himself, who lived among the marginalized and oppressed, challenged doctrine, and was put to death for it.

The Christian Church early on developed theological explanations for Jesus’ death by saying it was necessary for our salvation.

But I wonder. When Christ comes again as foretold in Scripture, what is the Church going to do? How is the Church going to react to someone who lives among the marginalized and oppressed of today, and openly challenges the doctrine that some of us clutch so closely to the breast? How is the Church going to react to someone who preaches that we don’t have it right and calls us to something greater?

I don’t think the Church will accept Christ, just as religious leaders didn’t accept Jesus. Sadly, I think we’ll end up prioritizing our current understanding of doctrine, calling Christ “rogue” and condemning Christ for going against the teachings of the Church — all out of fear.

History has a way of repeating itself.

I think the command "Go forth and multiply" is very reckless now.
Nobody knows what adjustments would be made including you.

There are plenty of resources, if everybody everywhere was following the whole program common to multiple faiths, not just Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I deplore pretty much everything about Sam Harris, but he was right about one thing —- wishy washy, watered down religion that tries to accommodate the modern world is generally not faithful to the doctrine of the religion. PP illustrates authentic religion, and why it’s so entirely off-putting (aside from the obvious “stories invented by men to extract wealth from and control others” issue).

Thanks PP!

[Anonymous]

I remember when asking if the Pope is Catholic was a way to answer a question affirmatively in an emphatic manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I deplore pretty much everything about Sam Harris, but he was right about one thing —- wishy washy, watered down religion that tries to accommodate the modern world is generally not faithful to the doctrine of the religion. PP illustrates authentic religion, and why it’s so entirely off-putting (aside from the obvious “stories invented by men to extract wealth from and control others” issue).

Thanks PP!

Sam Harris is right about a lot of things. Why do you deplore him? What has he said about the pope?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are angry because you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Thank you Catholic PP for your patience on this thread. It’s basically a giant series of sophistic arguments that you’ve continually responded to with an accurate, direct and yet respectful response, which is then ignored and a different argument is launched. Just on and on.

I wouldn’t have the patience for it but I appreciate your efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you Catholic PP for your patience on this thread. It’s basically a giant series of sophistic arguments that you’ve continually responded to with an accurate, direct and yet respectful response, which is then ignored and a different argument is launched. Just on and on.

I wouldn’t have the patience for it but I appreciate your efforts.

Eh. It’s Catholic dogma and ignores the earliest teachings of Jesus and the church. They were happy to write women out when women were instrumental in the early faith and a whole host of other things and if you think the head of any church should live in almost unimaginable luxury, then maybe neither of you has grasped Jesus’s teachings.

[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.

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

lol They created the doctrine you speak of…