Questioning Catholicism because of Pope Francis

Jack3 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:07 am

Denise Dee wrote:

Zeno wrote:

Can we try to avoid making this conversation specifically about LGBT issues and rather look at the broader question please?

Zeno
DCF Team

What is the broader question?

Xavier questioning Catholicism because of Pope Francis.

Peregrinator · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:28 am

Jack3 wrote:

It's abundantly clear that the Pope does not support gay marriage.

No, of course he is not a "supporter" of same-sex marriage in any way, but - let's be honest - neither is he a defender of the traditional family.

Jack3 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:50 am

Peregrinator wrote:

Jack3 wrote:

It's abundantly clear that the Pope does not support gay marriage.

No, of course he is not a "supporter" of same-sex marriage in any way, but - let's be honest - neither is he a defender of the traditional family.

Amoris Laetitia has good parts too; he supports the traditional family. He is not an enemy of the traditional family per se, though he seems to favour insane programmes of pastoral care for those in irregular situations.

Peregrinator · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:19 pm

Jack3 wrote:

Amoris Laetitia has good parts too; he supports the traditional family. He is not an enemy of the traditional family per se, though he seems to favour insane programmes of pastoral care for those in irregular situations.

I wasn't even talking about Amoris Laetitia specifically, and I don't think that Pope Francis is an "enemy" of the traditional family. He just doesn't seem terribly interested in defending it, as Amoris Laetitia, his comments about "the great majority of ... sacramental marriages" being "null", and his comments about Catholics breeding "like rabbits" all show.

Zeno · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:56 pm

Jack3 wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Zeno wrote:

Can we try to avoid making this conversation specifically about LGBT issues and rather look at the broader question please?

Zeno
DCF Team

What is the broader question?

Xavier questioning Catholicism because of Pope Francis.

Exactly.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:38 pm

His papal audiences on the family have really good stuff in them.

Pro-Zak · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:59 pm

Xavier wrote:

This will be final post on Catholic-Convert.

I joined the Catholic church about ten years ago, and my wife also converted. Later my parents also joined after being lifelong Episcopalians.

It was a happy time for a number of years, but I now regret the influence I had over them all. I am ashamed I brought them into the Catholic Church. I have struggles with sin and many character flaws. But the level of depravity within the church hierarchy is beyond belief. Truly, the earth itself calls out to heaven for justice.

I hope you will take the time to learn about Our Lady of Akita, a series of apparitions and messages along with public miracles personally witnessed and approved by the local bishop. The messages of Our Lady may bring clarity to understanding the state of the church today, and what likely awaits us. There are many videos on YouTube as well as articles explaining it all.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/joseph-p ... ays-crisis

I pray for the priests and bishops as Our Lady directs, but I have dwindling hope for conversion from sexual sin, which plagues everyone: churchmen,religious, the laity and the unbelieving world.

So instead I often meditate on the warning of Akita, and even pray for it to come soon.

May fire from heaven fall upon us all, because we have poisoned the earth.

Goodbye

Anyone going to address this post? Sounds pretty whack! :shock:

TreeBeard · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 3:38 pm

Xavier wrote:

... Instead of being the Bride of Christ and the Pillar of Truth, the Catholic Church may actually be run by Satan, and Pope Francis is his man...

Where does Our Lady of Akita even come close to saying anything like this?

The answer to the ills of the Church is that our prayers, our fasting and our suffering be offered up for Her. Lord, have mercy.

Having said that, I do not for one minute want to down play the spiritual and emotional angst and destruction that the immoral and criminal behavior of some bishops and priests have caused the faithful. It is iniquitous, reprehensible, despicable and any other like word you can think of. And many leaders, on Judgement Day, will have to answer for what they did and what they failed to do with the office entrusted to them.

Zeno · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:44 pm

Since people did not heed my request to stop focusing this thread on the issue of LBTQ I have removed the tangential remarks and put them in a separate thread in The Lyceum so I could leave this thread open rather than locking it entirely.

Pro-Zak · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:49 pm

Ok, this is disturbing as well...

"Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved."

Denise Dee · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 6:28 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

You put your trust in the Church, not in the Pope. We have had bad popes before, foolish popes before, rash and imprudent popes before, and popes with all those negative attributes and more, in various combinations.

To be a practicing Catholic do you not have to be "under the authority of the Pope"?

Yes and no. Are you familiar with the case of Pope John XXII, mentioned above?

When Vatican I defined infallibility, they defined it very carefully, because there are some incidents in Church history that would make the doctrine false if construed too broadly (e.g., John XII, Honorius). And it doesn't cover prudence and government at all.

We are bound to believe the pope when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals; he is the supreme legislator of the Church; and we should give deferential consideration to things he proposes even in a non-infallible way; but he is not a micro-managing controller.

No I am not familiar with the case of Pope John XXII, mentioned above.

The reason I asked is because when I registered on this message board it said that the label 'Catholic' (above username) is reserved for practicing Catholics under the authority of the Pope.

This thread is incredibly disrespectful to Pope Francis. Surely people can disagree with some of the things Pope Francis says and does without resorting to lies and conspiracy theories. It seems to be an American disease.

I meant to say below username.

Jack3 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:16 pm

Peregrinator wrote:

Jack3 wrote:

Amoris Laetitia has good parts too; he supports the traditional family. He is not an enemy of the traditional family per se, though he seems to favour insane programmes of pastoral care for those in irregular situations.

I wasn't even talking about Amoris Laetitia specifically, and I don't think that Pope Francis is an "enemy" of the traditional family. He just doesn't seem terribly interested in defending it, as Amoris Laetitia, his comments about "the great majority of ... sacramental marriages" being "null", and his comments about Catholics breeding "like rabbits" all show.

I referred to AL to show his support for the family. He has spoken in favour of large families too. He does not speak with precision, eg he said that the greatest problem in the world was unemployment. Surely, he has his problems, his defense of the family is inadequate and imperfect, but we shouldn't make him seem worse than he is.

Jack3 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:31 pm

Denise Dee wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

You put your trust in the Church, not in the Pope. We have had bad popes before, foolish popes before, rash and imprudent popes before, and popes with all those negative attributes and more, in various combinations.

To be a practicing Catholic do you not have to be "under the authority of the Pope"?

Yes and no. Are you familiar with the case of Pope John XXII, mentioned above?

When Vatican I defined infallibility, they defined it very carefully, because there are some incidents in Church history that would make the doctrine false if construed too broadly (e.g., John XII, Honorius). And it doesn't cover prudence and government at all.

We are bound to believe the pope when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals; he is the supreme legislator of the Church; and we should give deferential consideration to things he proposes even in a non-infallible way; but he is not a micro-managing controller.

No I am not familiar with the case of Pope John XXII, mentioned above.

The reason I asked is because when I registered on this message board it said that the label 'Catholic' (above username) is reserved for practicing Catholics under the authority of the Pope.

This thread is incredibly disrespectful to Pope Francis. Surely people can disagree with some of the things Pope Francis says and does without resorting to lies and conspiracy theories. It seems to be an American disease.

Popes have authority, but not everything they say is right and not everything they do is perfect. John XXII was a Pope who said something wrong. Simply put, to be under the Pope, you have to believe in solemn authoritative teaching, but not in his remarks as a private individual. It's a bit more nuanced than that, but Catholicism does not require us to believe that the Pope is perfect. Nor does the Pope's teaching authority come with a pen to write new teaching and an eraser to erase old teaching; instead, the Pope should guard the deposit of faith. In some sense, as the SSPX says, we submit to 'Eternal Rome'.

I'm Asian, not American; and no one in this thread used conspiracy theories to attack the Pope.

Jack3 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:35 pm

Back to the op:
During a frustrating argument with a Roman Catholic cardinal, Napoleon Bonaparte supposedly burst out: “Your eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?” The cardinal, the anecdote goes, responded ruefully: “Your majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”

Denise Dee · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:38 pm

Jack3 wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

You put your trust in the Church, not in the Pope. We have had bad popes before, foolish popes before, rash and imprudent popes before, and popes with all those negative attributes and more, in various combinations.

To be a practicing Catholic do you not have to be "under the authority of the Pope"?

Yes and no. Are you familiar with the case of Pope John XXII, mentioned above?

When Vatican I defined infallibility, they defined it very carefully, because there are some incidents in Church history that would make the doctrine false if construed too broadly (e.g., John XII, Honorius). And it doesn't cover prudence and government at all.

We are bound to believe the pope when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals; he is the supreme legislator of the Church; and we should give deferential consideration to things he proposes even in a non-infallible way; but he is not a micro-managing controller.

No I am not familiar with the case of Pope John XXII, mentioned above.

The reason I asked is because when I registered on this message board it said that the label 'Catholic' (above username) is reserved for practicing Catholics under the authority of the Pope.

This thread is incredibly disrespectful to Pope Francis. Surely people can disagree with some of the things Pope Francis says and does without resorting to lies and conspiracy theories. It seems to be an American disease.

Popes have authority, but not everything they say is right and not everything they do is perfect. John XXII was a Pope who said something wrong. Simply put, to be under the Pope, you have to believe in solemn authoritative teaching, but not in his remarks as a private individual. It's a bit more nuanced than that, but Catholicism does not require us to believe that the Pope is perfect. Nor does the Pope's teaching authority come with a pen to write new teaching and an eraser to erase old teaching; instead, the Pope should guard the deposit of faith. In some sense, as the SSPX says, we submit to 'Eternal Rome'.

I'm Asian, not American; and no one in this thread used conspiracy theories to attack the Pope.

Somebody in this thread posted links to conspiracy theories and lies to attack the Pope.

Zeno · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:43 pm

Certainly you can tell the difference between well grounded concern and far flung fantasies if you try.

Alexandros · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:23 pm

Xavier wrote:

This will be final post on Catholic-Convert.

I joined the Catholic church about ten years ago, and my wife also converted. Later my parents also joined after being lifelong Episcopalians.

It was a happy time for a number of years, but I now regret the influence I had over them all. I am ashamed I brought them into the Catholic Church. I have struggles with sin and many character flaws. But the level of depravity within the church hierarchy is beyond belief. Truly, the earth itself calls out to heaven for justice.

I hope you will take the time to learn about Our Lady of Akita, a series of apparitions and messages along with public miracles personally witnessed and approved by the local bishop. The messages of Our Lady may bring clarity to understanding the state of the church today, and what likely awaits us. There are many videos on YouTube as well as articles explaining it all.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/joseph-p ... ays-crisis

I pray for the priests and bishops as Our Lady directs, but I have dwindling hope for conversion from sexual sin, which plagues everyone: churchmen,religious, the laity and the unbelieving world.

So instead I often meditate on the warning of Akita, and even pray for it to come soon.

May fire from heaven fall upon us all, because we have poisoned the earth.

Goodbye

Sabbath wrote:

Anyone going to address this post? Sounds pretty whack! :shock:

Sure:

Stop making the person of the Pope an entity that you rely on for your faith to live or die.

People are upset about Francis, but don't really know what other absurd things popes have done throughout history against the faith, even including recently canonized ones.

Creating an image of the Papacy as some sort of impeccable demi-god is extremely unhealthy - and this kind of thing started well over 100 years ago. Many converts experience a barrage of Catholic media that makes the Papacy - or at least recent Popes - some kind of invincible and impeccable guide; they can do no wrong and we employ all sorts of mental gymnastics to defend them. The problem is, a lot of Catholics are not fooled to what Pope Francis is trying to push and/or the repeated mistakes (whatever the intention). The stuff Paul VI and JPII did more or less flies under the radar, but not Francis' deeds- and it is hurting people.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2018 10:02 am

As it happens, Rod Bennett has a new book out, just available yesterday, covering some of the periods in Church history where the hierarchy was often an embarrassment to the faithful. The title is Bad Shepherds. It's not quite up to his usual standards, but it is quite readable.

The Arian Crisis
The "Dark Ages"
The Reformation
Gallicanism

Doom · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:32 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

As it happens, Rod Bennett has a new book out, just available yesterday, covering some of the periods in Church history where the hierarchy was often an embarrassment to the faithful. The title is Bad Shepherds. It's not quite up to his usual standards, but it is quite readable.

The Arian Crisis
The "Dark Ages"
The Reformation
Gallicanism

ER Chamberlin's 'The Bad Popes' is probably still the definitive work on the subject, but I would argue that there is a significant difference between all those 'bad popes' and Pope Francis, which is that, in the past, previous 'bad Popes' were generally spectacularly uninterested in doctrine. What is happening with Pope Francis would be similar to having a Pope, during the Arian crisis, who seemed to give support to the Arians.

theJack · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:19 am

I dont understand the initial objection. If you think the RCC is the church Christ founded, what have you to gain be leaving on a count of corruption in her human leadership? It doesn't take much Scripture reading to see that God's chosen people have frequently had to deal with mismanagement (to put it mildly). On the other hand, if you dont basically believe Christ founded the RCC, why join at all? For whatever agreement you may have with particular doctrines or whatever cultural or historical appreciation you have for the church, her fundamental claim is that she is the body Christ founded and that hell will not overcome her.

I guess that just strikes me as a yes/no proposition. You either believe it or you dont. Corrupt leadership just doesn't seem to enter the picture for me. [/confused]

Questioning Catholicism because of Pope Francis

Who is online