|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Among all the words written about Pope Francis’ effects on the Catholic Church, one picture succinctly illustrates the existential conflict American Catholics face.
The Rev. Joseph Devlin, a pastor in suburban Philadelphia, tweeted a picture of a book in his trash can. The foreword for the book, The Synodal Process is a Pandora’s Box, was written by Cardinal Raymond Burke, the former archbishop of St. Louis. Burke, who questions Francis’ theological positions, warned about an upcoming international synod that proposes fundamental changes to historic teaching.
“Where this belongs!” Devlin tweeted. “I stand with and trust Pope Francis.”
American Catholics find themselves caught in the crossfire of a war between those, such as Devlin, who blindly support the pope and those, such as Burke, who legitimately question the direction in which Francis is leading the church.
Burke’s camp includes Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who issued a pastoral letter Aug. 22 on the synod, which plans to address the sacramental status of remarried and divorced Catholics, gender ideology and ecumenism, at least.
“The evil and false message that has entered the church … is that Jesus is only one among many, and that it is not necessary for his message to be shared with all humanity,” Strickland wrote. “This idea must be shunned and refuted at every turn.”
Strickland then briefly presented the historic teaching on the subjects mentioned before declaring that “the surest footing we can find is to remain firmly upon the perennial teachings of the faith,” he wrote.
Before Strickland issued that letter, Francis expressed contempt for his conservative American critics while meeting with Portuguese Jesuits on Aug. 5. Civilta Cattolica, a Jesuit magazine edited by the Vatican, printed his remarks Aug. 28, six days after Strickland’s warnings.
“There is a very strong reactionary attitude,” Francis said. “It is organized and shapes the way people belong, even emotionally. I would like to remind those people that indietrismo (being backward-looking) is useless and we need to understand that there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals as long as we follow the three criteria that Vincent of Lérins already indicated in the fifth century.
“In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands and consolidates with time and becomes firmer, but is always progressing. Change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with these three criteria.”
The term “faith and morals” holds special significance for Catholics, who believe papal teaching on such subjects is infallible.
So, Francis uses Vincent’s criteria to justify his theological novelty. But what are those criteria and do they apply?
Cardinal John Henry Newman, a 19th century British convert, popularized and refined Vincent’s criteria in An Essay on the Development of Doctrine. Newman devised seven tests: 1) preserving the type or identity 2) continuity of principles 3) assimilative power 4) logical consequence 5) anticipation of its future 6) conservative action and 7) chronic vigor.
Newman used a biological analogy to explain the first test: “Young birds do not grow into fishes, nor does the child degenerate into the brute (animal), wild or domestic…” Concerning his second test, Newman wrote that “a development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started.”
Assimilative power means that “a living idea becomes many, yet remains one,” Newman wrote. His fourth test determines whether a doctrine “is likely to be a true development, not a corruption, in proportion as it seems to be the logical issue of its original teaching.” Newman’s fifth test involves “early imitations of tendencies which afterwards are fully realized … in accordance with the original idea,” he wrote.
The sixth test requires faithful progress without contradictory change, with Newman directly citing Vincent on that point, while the seventh concerns doctrinal longevity.
The problem is the pope’s subtle yet direct contradiction of Catholic teaching, as FrontPage Magazine often reported. The Rev. Juan R. Velez, a doctor of dogmatic theology and an expert on Newman, used the cardinal’s third test to criticize proposals that open the possibility for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion, a possibility that repudiates historic teaching.
“The proposed doctrine seems to assimilate the Christian practice of mercy and forgiveness, but it contradicts others such as justice with regard to the obligations that derive from the nature of marriage,” Velez wrote in Catholic World Report in 2014. “It is doubtful that it can pass the test of assimilative power.”
Two years later, Francis wrote Amoris Laetitia, a papal exhortation that appeared to do what Velez feared. Burke and three other Vatican cardinals formally asked Francis to explain his rationale — and have yet to receive an answer after seven years. Since then, two of the cardinals have died.
When it comes to such subjects as gender ideology and abortion, Francis plays a double game. On the one hand, he offers lip service to historic teaching. But on the other, he appoints and supports Catholics who publicly disown that teaching.
Take gender ideology. As FrontPage Magazine often reported, Francis calls gender theory “ideological colonization” yet appoints such men as the Rev. James Martin and Luxembourg Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich to important positions. Martin, a papal communications advisor, not only uses social media to promote gender ideology, including sexual transition for children. He even criticized biblical condemnations of homosexuality on Twitter.
Hollerich, appointed to Francis’ closest circle of advisors in March, went further. He publicly rejected Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
Or take abortion. As FrontPage Magazine often reported, Francis equates having an abortion to “hiring a hitman,” yet embraces and supports American and European politicians who support legalized abortion. Among them are Joe Biden and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who identify as Catholics.
In 2021, as head of the former Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Luis Ladaria discouraged American bishops from applying canon law and withholding communion from such politicians.
The next year, the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Cardinal Vincenzo Paglia, said on Italian television that the Vatican had no interest in opposing a 45-year-old law allowing abortion. Paglia even called the law, “a pillar of our social life.”
In promoting his theological agenda, Francis lets others take the lead — and the immediate risks — while he silently supports them. Once conditions reach critical mass, Francis can embrace the changes as a natural evolution. He demonstrated this exact behavior in 2018 concerning capital punishment.
For centuries, the Catholic Church accepted and defended the death penalty; the Papal States even used it. But in 1995, Pope John Paul II used his encyclical Evangelium Vitae to argue that capital punishment was fundamentally unnecessary. The head of CDF at the time — Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI — changed the catechism to reflect that view.
As a result, Catholicism developed a basically abolitionist stance toward the death penalty. In 2018, Francis solidified that stance by calling capital punishment “inadmissible,” or fundamentally immoral. Once again, authorities changed the catechism. But the Rev. John Hardon, a Jesuit scholar, argued in 1975 in his commentary on the catechism:
“Nowhere in the New Testament is capital punishment outlawed. On the contrary, the New Testament not only recognizes the right of the State to exercise authority in the name of God but enjoins obedience to the State in applying the laws of God to its citizens.”
Hardon’s critique decades before its time not only exposes Francis’ careless handling of theology for his own purposes, using Vincent of Lerins as an excuse. It reveals the utter contempt Francis and his allies have for previous teaching, especially doctrines coming from Scripture.
Ironically, in citing Vincent, Francis actually contradicts him. As the fifth-century monk wrote:
“What, if some novel contagion seeks to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his (a Catholic’s) care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.”
But the Catholic bishops who take that advice face fierce opposition from their own. In January, as FrontPage Magazine reported, San Diego Cardinal Robert McElroy — whom Francis appointed — argued for “radical inclusion” of LGBTQ Catholics, regardless of their sexual behavior or their views on Catholic teaching about homosexuality. Within a month, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Ill. called McElroy a heretic unfit for church office.
Yet the conflict between Paprocki and McElroy, like the one between Devlin and Burke, reflects the ominous state of the Catholic Church worldwide.
“The present crisis is probably the worst the church has had for centuries, perhaps from its beginning, in some way or another,” said John Rist, a Catholic scholar in Britain. “It’s more dangerous to the existence of the Church. You can compare the Reformation, but I think it’s even more serious than that.
“In terms of the damage that it now might cause, what might happen to the Church in the future, this is going to cause more trouble, more than anything else we’ve seen before.”
My understanding of the Doctrine of Infallibilit of the Pope is that thePope is only infallible when he speaks Ex Cathedra
The Catholic doctrine of an infallible human being other than Jesus is biblical heresy. Catholics who reject the church’s teaching about an infallible pope are, indeed, more Catholic than the pope.
Curious, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ONLY authoritative source for the faith and practice of Christians?
Other than the biblical revelation from God, what other authoritative source for Christian faith and practice could there possibly be, Pope Francis?
We have had 40-odd antipopes during our two thousand+ years of history. Imho, we have added 6 more since 1958. Traditional Catholics remain faithful to the perennial dogmas but niether faith nor loyalty must ever be given to the deceitful advocates of the useless delusions of judaeo-protestant progressivism, freemasony, and/or marxism.
For details, see: Matthew 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15.
Interesting question. Much of Catholic teaching comes from various spiritual revelations by saints or theologians, or particularly from various Vatican councils. However, it remains fundamentally scripturally based.
“But he [Jesus] answered [Satan] and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). For the benefit of the confused, the pope ain’t God.
The Church does not teach that the pope is an infallible human being.
Yes, and it has very narrow scope as well.
The doctrine of infallibility was adopted in 1870 by Pope Pius IX & the First Vatican Council. It had been discussed during the Counter-Reformation but never became canon law until Pius IX. It was controversial. Lord Acton, a devout Catholic, argued vociferously against it.
Infallibility, like omnipotence, and omniscience, are God-like qualities. Humans are infallible.
Typo: humans are inherently fallible.
Now, church authorities express the “correct” (i.e. orthodox) view, which training and study has given them the authority to do. Infallible means can not but be correct. Only God is infallible. Pius IX, who was also the last monarch of central Italy (Papal States), was also quite controversial in his innovations.
I am sure you meant to say that “humans are fallible.” The inability to edit here is annoying.
In any event, the Successor of Peter, speaking from the apostolic chair — EX CATHEDRA — must expressly and peremptorily declare that this or that truth belongs to Revelation. Then, and only then, is he infallible.
It is a supernatural privilege, founded on the divine assistance promised by Jesus Christ to the Pope, that he would not err any time that he –– speaking Ex Cathedra as supreme Teacher of the universal Church –– defines that a doctrine of faith or morals belongs to the deposit of Revelation.
It is a privilege that is Not given to the Pope as an individual, but to his office, to his function. The Pope is infallible not for his own advantage, but for the benefit of the Church. In the sphere of private actions, the Pontiff is subject to errors of the intellect and moral sins.
And since 1870, it has been invoked twice.
Yes but that’s hardly relevant here. Infallibility isn’t on the line; changing the direction of the Church’s doctrinal development is.
The Pope is a proponent of the fundamentally Marxist “Liberation Theology” doctrine from Latin America. This doctrine has infected the Vatican and spread through Catholic Church.
Addendum:
John Paul II’s condemnation of liberation theology was, “‘There will be no double magisterium. There will be no double hierarchy. ‘” The Pope saw liberation theology, first of all, as a challenge to Church hierarchy.
There’s a solution for all of this — whatever someone tells you including Ayn Rand — think for yourself about the facts of reality and follow reality.
“A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear of independence that he renounced his rational faculty. At the crossroads of the choice between “I know” and “They say,” he chose the authority of others, he chose to submit rather than to understand, to believe rather than to think.” – Ayn Rand
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
― Buddha Siddhartha Guatama Shakyamuni
See ‘Catholic’, must respond. Pavlov’s dog experiment fulfilled.
Oh that you would actually follow your own advice. Instead we get endless spam from any number of faux objectivist intellectuals like you, and your favorite resident clergy.
Typical of the satanic catholic fake church… which was built upon lies…
They get distracted…
The biggest grievance of catholics should be… the worship of the fake god allah of satanic islam. A fake god who has no sons for Salvation…
How can a C’lic be Saved if their god doesn’t have Jesus for their Salvation? Which is why C’lics are wrongly told to perform good deeds in order to obtain Salvation…
Get this… the satanic catholic fake church is NOT the true church! <<< It's all lies!! The satanic catholic fake church was established 300+ years after the Crucifixion… Where Peter, Paul, Polycarp & Linus had no say in their names being used in the creation of the satanic catholic fake church.
Anyone who is a C'lic, who would research their fake church… would denounce the satanic catholic fake church!
Anyone who is a C'lic, who would research their fake church… would see that they are being deceived to worship the fake god allah of satanic islam. The fake god allah… who was once known as Baal… which is NOT the same One True Living God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob… the Father of our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus.
The bigger threat to Christianity… isn't about Abortion or Homosexuality… it's the worship of the fake god allah!!!
You have zero evidence that “The satanic catholic [sic] fake church was established 300+ years after the Crucifixion.” Zero. Examination of the extant historical evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion. Of course, your only defense against the historical claim that the Catholic Church dates to 33AD (unlike your made-up religion from the 15th century) is to concoct an absurd fantasy that the “true” church was highjacked by Catholics in the 4th century. So I understand your motivation. It’s just not historically supportable.
I don’t agree with sumrent’s remarks here, but arguements could be made that, since the Council of Nicaea was overseen by Constantine, modern Catholicism is more the product of an emperor than of the Holy Spirit. Not agreeing, just sayin’…
Go at it! Let’s have another 300 years of Christians burning Christians at the stake over orthodoxy, exegesis, and interpretation.
Your main problem is you don’t seem at all happy. You just hate and sneer at everyone while drowning in your own self-satisfaction.
Like that quote from the previous writer hi there I’m, he nailed it
reminds me of my favorite quote by G. K. Chesterton: “The real tradegy of a man who no longer believes in God is not that he believes in nothing but rather that he’ll believe in anything.”
The Pope is s total fraud the Vatican blew it totally blew it
Strange how people are so fixated on religion when it’s all about Jesus.
What about Jesus is worthy of emulation? He gave up every earthly value, pleasure, and joy to be sacrificed on a cross for undeserving sinners, a sacrificial animal, a human sacrifice, is this what you call virtue?
The American way of life is not ascetic, altruistic, self-sacrifice, renunciation of life, but the personal pursuit of happiness on earth. The worldly pursuit of life on earth, liberty on earth, and happiness on earth.
I don’t want to sacrifice my life for undeserving strangers, undeserving neighbors, or undeserving sinners. I want to achieve my happiness, here on earth, without sacrificing myself to others, or sacrificing others to myself. Producing spiritual and material values and trading those values with other happy producers for profit and gain. Not sacrifice and loss.
Is there something wrong with that?
“I don’t want to sacrifice my life for undeserving strangers, undeserving neighbors, or undeserving sinners. I want to achieve my happiness, here on earth, without sacrificing myself to others, or sacrificing others to myself. Producing spiritual and material values and trading those values with other happy producers for profit and gain. Not sacrifice and loss. Is there something wrong with that?”
Why is your life worth emulating? There is something definitely wrong with you. The only person here who is undeserving is you. Personally, if you were passed out in the street and I knew it was you I would step on you to cross that street. Your main problem is you don’t seem at all happy. You just hate and sneer at everyone while drowning in your own self-satisfaction.
*I don’t recognize any such absurdity as service to my country. I recognize a moral responsibility to my freedom and liberty and the freedom and liberty of those I love.* THX
The American way of life is what each of us choose for ourselves. If I want to be altruistic and help others what do you care? Is your life changed in any way. Thank God our soldiers do what they do for me and, unfortunately, even for you so you can be a permanent stain on this country.
Those two quotes from you sum you up perfectly. You will not be remembered when you pass away. You will be alone, probably in some hospital where altruistic people will mistakenly try to keep you alive. No one will care. And why would we? You never cared about anything but yourself.
OK. Que the two losers who always downvote me but don’t have the guts to comment back.
it never ceases to amaze me that people generally believe that the catholic church is christian . it’s history , theology and founding is pagan . anyone who has read the ” 2 babylons ” and no one i know has and by the comments confirms that . so many comments that appear on this site and others confirm that there are a lot of sunday school theology degrees out there . armchair theologians that are totally clueless as to what the bible means and teaches . the pope has become an apologist for islam and the rainbow crowd . along with celibacy and him being the head of the church neither taught in the old or NT. we will all be held to account after we die and ignorance will not get you off the hook with the sovereign of the universe to whom all will be accountable . time to get your house in order while you still draw breath .
“The pope has become an apologist for Islam”
That actually started with John Paul II. When Benedict XVI tried to hold Muslims accountable for their behavior, he received such blowback that he retreated.
This is actually an excellent primer into the modern Catholic Church’s relationship to Islam:
The Catholic church preaches False Doctrine, its the doctrine of men, not the gospel and the Good news of Jesus Christ that was given to the Disciples who gave it to the Jews first, and the Gentiles. The Catholic church is helping the invasion of illegal aliens, the so called diversity of all nations….its all part of the One World Government agenda.