The Catholic Message Board

I ignore Pope Francis as much as I can. I've unfortunately read enough material attributed to him to know that he has no theological or philosophical capacity to speak of, and I won't learn anything enlightening from him. Life is short. I've got a stack of books on my shelf that I need to get through. We'll get through this papacy, and even if the next pope is a good one, he can still be largely ignored. I liked Benedict XVI pretty well, and I've read a few of his books, particularly his works on the liturgy (actually informed by deep scholarly and spiritual wisdom, which can't be said for the inane comments on the subject by his successor), but he played frankly a near-zero role in my intellectual life, and even less of a role in my spiritual life. The pope is the bishop of Rome. I belong to the Church of Charlotte. Sufficient for the place is the evil thereof.

Stella wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:58 pm
Perhaps you could speak out against those proliferating the notion that Pope Francis is an antipope rather than attacking the messenger. That would be the likes of Archbishop Vigano.

https://exsurgedomine.it/en/230930-cic-eng/

Dr Taylor Marshall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozloQ7GahLI

Patrick Coffin.

https://catholicconvert.com/patrick-cof ... anti-pope/

I won't overburden the thread with anymore citations at the moment.

Why is anyone here supposedly obligated to speak out against them? No one here is a representative for any of those people or their positions. It's ridiculous and unfair to demand that someone have to speak for someone else or defend a position that they themselves don't hold.

If you want them to answer for their position, how about going to them and bothering them to explain themselves instead of setting up a strawman thread here on this board /forum?

Taylor Marshall has recently really gone over the deep end with some of the stuff he has said, it is unbelievable to me that less than a decade ago I was recommending his books and now I have to recommend that no one ever read him on any subject whatever. He has gone from offering meaningful observations about the Jewish roots of Christianity to arguing that the moon landing was faked and claiming that believing in the moon landing conspriacy theory is an essential part of Catholic identity. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not.

But Partick Coffin is not a Sedevacantist, just because someone is a savage critic of Francis doesn't make him a Sedevacantist. Was Dante a Sedevacantist when he put several Popes in hell, including one who is actually a canonized saint? You can be a critic of the Pope and still be a faithful Catholic, these two things are not in conflict. Indeed, sometimes being a faithful Catholic requires being a critic of the Pope and I believe now is one of those times.

I think Coffin is a sedevacantist now (but I'm not going to listen or watch to find out for sure).

zeno wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 11:26 am

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 10:01 am I am not aware that any of those people are members of this forum.

Exactly.

Stella wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 5:39 pm I challenge Catholics to get all their information about Pope Francis from his own words/homilies/encyclicals/letters etc. rather than Catholic shock jocks. For the sake of a healthy faith life.

Again, I don't know who here you think is in need of this advice. Frankly, I find it insulting.

Wait? I wasn't giving advice to individuals here. But people who are proliferating the belief addressed in the OP.

Many apologies. This was a failed attempt at apologetics.

The only idea we are perpetuating is that Francis is a bad Pope, I mean historically bad, "worst Pope since the Reformation" bad. He is not, however, an illegitimately elected Pope.

Doom wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 4:21 pm The only idea we are perpetuating is that Francis is a bad Pope, I mean historically bad, "worst Pope since the Reformation" bad. He is not, however, an illegitimately elected Pope.

Would you say that his being a 'bad' Pope for those reasons you listed previously, voids all his teaching encyclicals and his vision for the Church?

His teachings that I have read consist largely of completely vacuous statements and restatements of the obvious. Let's be honest that statement describes the vast majority of Papal encyclicals, and even the ones that contain more meaningful content, are rarely all that important in the long run.

John Paul II published 14 encyclicals which were of better quality than most, but it is still clear, close to 20 years after his death that the overall impact of them on the life of the Church has been virtually nil. LeoXII published a record of 86 encyclicals, and the only one that has had a long-term impact is Rerum Novarum, but at the end of the day, that encyclical only restated Church teaching that was already centuries old by that point.

In general, less is more, and not just Popes but also local bishops and national bishop's conferences. Stop talking so much and we might listen to you more.

Doom wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 4:46 pm His teachings that I have read consist largely of completely vacuous statements and restatements of the obvious. Let's be honest that statement describes the vast majority of Papal encyclicals, and even the ones that contain more meaningful content, are rarely all that important in the long run.

John Paul II published 14 encyclicals which were of better quality than most, but it is still clear, close to 20 years after his death that the overall impact of them on the life of the Church has been virtually nil. LeoXII published a record of 86 encyclicals, and the only one that has had a long-term impact is Rerum Novarum, but at the end of the day, that encyclical only restated Church teaching that was already centuries old by that point.

In general, less is more, and not just Popes but also local bishops and national bishop's conferences. Stop talking so much and we might listen to you more.

Sorta like Barak Obama and the schoolmarm from the "Peanuts" cartoons....the more they talk the more you just shut them off or drown them out.

Doom wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 4:46 pm His teachings that I have read consist largely of completely vacuous statements and restatements of the obvious. Let's be honest that statement describes the vast majority of Papal encyclicals, and even the ones that contain more meaningful content, are rarely all that important in the long run.

John Paul II published 14 encyclicals which were of better quality than most, but it is still clear, close to 20 years after his death that the overall impact of them on the life of the Church has been virtually nil. LeoXII published a record of 86 encyclicals, and the only one that has had a long-term impact is Rerum Novarum, but at the end of the day, that encyclical only restated Church teaching that was already centuries old by that point.

In general, less is more, and not just Popes but also local bishops and national bishop's conferences. Stop talking so much and we might listen to you more.

I can vouch for a different experience of each papacy. A distinct working of osmosis according with each papacy. An example would be in the general Catholic attitude towards the Jews and towards Protestants as a result of Nostra Aetate. I can remember my parents/grandparents shifting markedly in old views and opinions over that time.

JPII initiated the awareness of the moral nature of the effect of industrialisation on the environment which began in his very first encyclical Redemptor Hominis (1979).

At the same time, exploitation of the earth not only for industrial but also for military purposes and the uncontrolled development of technology outside the framework of a long-range authentically humanistic plan often bring with them a threat to man's natural environment, alienate him in his relations with nature and remove him from nature. Man often seems to see no other meaning in his natural environment than what serves for immediate use and consumption. Yet it was the Creator's will that man should communicate with nature as an intelligent and noble "master" and "guardian", and not as a heedless "exploiter" and "destroyer".

So I disagree that the mission and teaching of the Popes aren't all that relevant in the day to day of faith life. Hence the need to be up to date on current teachings. It used to filter through to us through the clergy in homilies and in religion classes at school but the hope expressed recently at the USCCB meeting is to use media and social media as a more widespread way of spreading up to date mission and teaching.

Stella wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 4:10 pm

zeno wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 11:26 am

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 10:01 am I am not aware that any of those people are members of this forum.

Exactly.

Stella wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 5:39 pm I challenge Catholics to get all their information about Pope Francis from his own words/homilies/encyclicals/letters etc. rather than Catholic shock jocks. For the sake of a healthy faith life.

Again, I don't know who here you think is in need of this advice. Frankly, I find it insulting.

Wait? I wasn't giving advice to individuals here. But people who are proliferating the belief addressed in the OP.

Many apologies. This was a failed attempt at apologetics.

This wasn't directed at anyone here? Then why say it here?

If it was insulting to you, I'm sorry. It was a comment made into the ether at Catholics in general.

I would argue that Veritatis Splendor has had an effect, albeit not enough.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 5:57 pm I would argue that Veritatis Splendor has had an effect, albeit not enough.

Evangelium Vitae introduced the phrase "building a culture of life" which has become widely used by the pro-life movement, including being frequently used by George W Bush in his 2000 campaign

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 5:57 pm I would argue that Veritatis Splendor has had an effect, albeit not enough.

Regarding Veritatis Splendor and this is probably more appropriate for the Lyceum or Catholicism101, but do you think we've been slow to recognise the distinction between mortal sin and grave matter? And lest anyone mistake the question as me trying to justify my own sins, it is not. I'm thinking more about the direction being taken by Pope Francis in ministering to people traditionally rejected as grave sinners.

"The statement of the Council of Trent does not only consider the "grave matter" of mortal sin; it also recalls that its necessary condition is "full awareness and deliberate consent". In any event, both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it. Even so, "care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of 'fundamental option' — as is commonly said today — against God", seen either as an explicit and formal rejection of God and neighbour or as an implicit and unconscious rejection of love. "For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God's love for humanity and the whole of creation: the person turns away from God and loses charity. Consequently, the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by particular acts. Clearly, situations can occur which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint, and which influence the sinner's subjective imputability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to create a theological category, which is precisely what the 'fundamental option' is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin"."

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-pau ... endor.html

peregrinator wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 4:07 pm I think Coffin is a sedevacantist now (but I'm not going to listen or watch to find out for sure).

I believe this is correct as well.

people traditionally rejected as grave sinners

Rejected by whom?

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 7:37 pm

people traditionally rejected as grave sinners

Rejected by whom?

Well lets say 'marginalised' by the Church. Specifically thinking of the two prominent issues now ie the divorced/remarried and homosexuals. It's traditional for the Church to not have addressed culpability for mortal sin and the psychological influences on that aspect and to have had a very black and white attitude with regard to access to the Sacraments. So while VS makes it clear that nothing proposed should in effect "objectively change or cast doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin", there is room for deeper study into what constitutes a lack of culpability and how that can be treated by the Church for those who desire 'communion'.

That's not the case. The question of culpability has always been present.

I might also add that the theory of the "fundamental option" was very severely criticized in Veritatis Splendor by Pope St. John Paul II. It turns out that it's not very merciful to tell someone they're well when in fact they are not.