Reply to Rogue Pope

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Rogue Pope"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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

[b]The Pope’s ability to modify the discipline of celibacy is debated?  I think not. [/b]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.[/quote]

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[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

No abortions in the 1st trimester were not a sin until some rogue pope in the 1500’s made it so against the advice of all his advisors.

Making abortion a “grave” sin was never based in theology but based in the need to control women. Also abortion was never stated as a sin because of killing a baby, it was a sin because it tempted men to fornicate.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics