What could happen next?

Submitted by LocutusOP on Wed, 06/14/2017 - 19:40
Author: 

T-C- , Joseph Sha, Anil Wang, Nicolas Bellord           

Date: 
Wednesday, June 14, 2017 - 19:30
Article link: 
What could happen next?

If I may point out though, I got a very depressing view reading your article because I think you failed to mention some important points. Because as your article stands, anyone who is opposing the Pope does look like they are going the way of the schismatics.

When the Old Catholics or Orthodox when into schism, their objections were not simply left unaddressed. The Church provided evidence for her doctrinal and dogmatic teachings by drawing upon Tradition and Church history. Even the Protestants got a council (Trent) to address their accusations.

What we have had in the past 50 years are Popes acting as if there was no explanation necessary to reconcile their actions with pre-Vatican II teaching. If their actions can be interpreted in consistency with statements from Vatican II, it is all that seems to matter.

THAT, is the actual problem.

I do not find the actions and statements of Pope Francis or St. John Paul II problematic because I refuse to look at the explanations. NO, I find them problematic because they clearly contradict prior positions of the Church and no explanation has been given by the Church herself on how to reconcile them with the past.

Simply saying that we have a hermeneutic of continuity without actually demonstrating it is the problem.

 

Replies
 

  • You are right; I wasn'5 addressing the substantive issues in this post.

  • Personally I do see Vatican II in continuity with Tradition but beyond the "Spirit of Vatican II" there are problems with Vatican II itself that lend themselves to misinterpretation and have been made worse in the new universal catchechism (which is unfortunately is the only anchor most orthodox Catholics have against the Pope Francis sophists).

    Take LG 16-17. LG 16 says that non-Catholics can go to heaven through God's mercy if they honestly seek to live in the truth of God to the best of their abilities but LG 17 says people tend to be lead astray. While this is true, the softness of the tone in LG 17 has lead many to believe that most people go to Heaven. Worse, the new catechism refers only to LG 16 and makes no mention of LG 17 so we're left in the state where Catholics who don't know Tradition simply assume most of their non-Catholic neighbours and "Wedding and Funeral" Catholic relatives will go to Heaven since God is merciful.

    Worse, our modern Pope no longer believe in limbo so they teach unbaptized babies likely go straight to heaven and original sin is downplayed which feed back into the "you don't need to evangelize" since original sin doesn't need to be washed away and the sacraments Jesus instituted really aren't all that necessary. Limbo is this laughed off as just a scholastic innovation and if left unchecked original sin will follow suit. And if the sacraments aren't really that important, neither is the liturgy so we have flexibility in how we can "make the mass more relevant".

    Personally I see this von Balthasarian heresy as so toxic that a future Pope will have no choice but to condemn it, so there is hope of a restoration. Perhaps limbo might not be viewed as "the top level of hell", but it must make a comeback, even if it is just "the limbo of the Just" or "the garden of Eden". Regardless, the people in limbo might be happy and not suffer, but they will not have the Beautific Vision. So to not evangelize or fight abortion or ignore the sacraments would be the ultimate injustice that would put our souls at risk.

 

...

I was struck by the following sentence in the article you referred us to:

"For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls ‘pious and probable’, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy."

I wonder whether at this stage we are not dealing with a certain type of ignorance rather than heresy. Reading Amoris Laetitia I am struck by the different styles of writing in each chapter and strongly suspect that much of it is the work of people other than Pope Francis. I see Pope Francis as someone of half-baked views who is simply not up to the job. He seems to have absorbed some ideas only half understanding them and I suspect Germany, where he failed to complete his studies, is the source of many such ideas half-learnt.

It is said that Chapter VIII was written by a colleague in Argentina and I wonder whether Pope Francis really understood the import of what was written and like many half-learned people is now just being obstinate and is flailing about not knowing what to say or do.

As to what could happen now my understanding is that an imperfect General Council could be organised if only over the internet but it is a pity we do not have a Holy Roman Emperor to corral them!

Idiotic statements seem to be coming from the papacy at ever greater rapidity and I suspect that in the long run it may be a question of men in white coats removing him to some asylum which presumably does not require a General Council. Indeed what is the position of a Pope who becomes mentally unstable?- I do not think the article you refer to addresses that point.

 

 

 

 

Own comment: 

It is difficult to disagree with the take of T-C-  on the issue:

...

What we have had in the past 50 years are Popes acting as if there was no explanation necessary to reconcile their actions with pre-Vatican II teaching. If their actions can be interpreted in consistency with statements from Vatican II, it is all that seems to matter.

THAT, is the actual problem.

I do not find the actions and statements of Pope Francis or St. John Paul II problematic because I refuse to look at the explanations. NO, I find them problematic because they clearly contradict prior positions of the Church and no explanation has been given by the Church herself on how to reconcile them with the past.

Simply saying that we have a hermeneutic of continuity without actually demonstrating it is the problem.

Another commenter speculates that Bergoglio is losing his mind.

For what it's worth I do not think he his. He is simply an evil heretical man, too stupid to even push his heresy in a crafty way, and to be fair not needing to since virtually none of the 'shepherds' oppose him.