https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2021/10/06/german-bishops-join-the-wolves/ An astonishing news item in the Wall Street Journal reports: “At a meeting in Frankfurt, German [Catholic] church leaders voted 168 to 28. . .to adopt a draft statement on sexuality that includes a resolution saying that ‘same-sex partnerships who want to take the risk of an unbreakable common life. . .should be able to see themselves placed under the blessing of God.’”
One of the reasons why I am on this forum is because I used to read hysterical Catholic news articles from Catholic sites. I would read this with caution. It may be heresy. Seriously. I read an article about Germany trying to abolish Catholic priests, and it was heresy and fake news.
Not sure if this is a break from the vatican, since Pope Francis as far back as 2014 said of homosexuality, Who Am I To Judge?
I think some of you are cherry-picking (mis)quotes to support your position, which for some reason requires that the Pope be “liberal”, no matter the facts. On the whole, I don’t see Francis as different in any fundamental way from his recent predecessors. This article from the Washington Post is from earlier just this year. If Pope Francis is at the vanguard of a wide scale progressive reform of the Roman Catholic Church, that seems to have gotten past the progressives themselves. Anglican or not, he’s still a bishop, and I don’t think it does anyone’s soul any good to talk about him as though we were a popular politician instead of a man of the Church. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...51ee80-8581-11eb-be4a-24b89f616f2c_story.html
You are right we should not just trash talk anyone but it is perfectly legitimate to question and critique what they say.
The pope said the miracle of the loaves and fishes didn't happen THe pope doesn't see anything wrong with lgbtq The pope advocated universalism The pope has pushed through communion for divorced & remarried The pope has prayed to a pagan idol the pope is a heretic
Hang on a second. The pope did pray to a pagan idol, which is a sin. (Let’s not get into the gravity of his culpability). However the pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit and is infallible. Throughout history there have been corrupt popes, but none of them ever preached error. Never ever. The first pope was saint Peter. He was human, uneducated, and probably was very frustrated with fools. I’m glad this strict guy is not my pope today.
You didn't provide any sources, but I'm guessing that the first comment about the loaves and fish is referencing a sermon the Pope delivered earlier this year, in which he said: This statement is not a denial of a miracle. Obviously something doesn't have to be created from nothing in order to be a miracle, and indeed there would be significant theological problems with the claim that the loaves and fish were created ex nihilo. His stance on LGBTQ+ issues is by no means unambiguous, nor is it perceived as unambiguous by those who would like to see more inclusive language from the Vatican. I have already pointed this out above. To say that he "doesn't see anything wrong" with it is quite a leap and isn't backed up by the totality of what the Pope has said about it thus far. https://www.hrc.org/resources/seven-quotes-that-make-pope-francis-complicated-for-lgbt-people The Pope did not teach universalism; he teaches a universal atonement, like the Roman Catholic Church has always done. Francis is not a 5-Point Calvinist. Here is the full quote: The Pope has not "pushed through" communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, as any search for diocesan guidelines on the subject will quickly reveal, as will accounts in the media from 2017. https://dioceseofspokane.org/documents/2016/4/tribunal_2016.pdf https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/pope-francis-divorce-remarriage-communion-guidelines-letter/ As for the idol, yeah, this actually happened. That's probably the least shocking thing he's been accused of. Issues surrounding idolatry have been points of contention between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and between Christianity as a whole and the other Abrahamic religions, for many centuries.
It is only the last one and the first one are heretical. The councils teach that as long as we don't teach universalism as a 100% sure thing we are within the bounds of faith and we can for sure hope for it. Outside of Rome communion for the did allow for divorce, remarriage, and communion. In fact the Romans did that for a long time also. Take a look at Charlemane. His first wife, while there is doubt over the status, was refered to by a Pope as his wife. He told him not to put her aside. He did anyway and remarried. He still received communion, was crowned emperor and was even Beautified.
in ACNA, when considering the qualifications for new bishops, if a priest was found to have so-called divorced, that's a disqualification for his consecration okay but Pope francis has taught it as a sure thing: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...o-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html "Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven" My friend, I don't know the pope's native language but those who do have affirmed that he has outright denied the miracle... https://www.ncregister.com/blog/pop...loaves-and-fishes-11-things-to-know-and-share More recently, in a video appeal released in December to help a hunger relief project, he stated: The parable of the multiplication of the loaves and fish teaches us exactly this: that if there is the will, what we have never ends. On the contrary, it abounds and does not get wasted. This makes it sound as if he’s saying that the multiplication of loaves and fishes wasn’t even a natural event. Instead, it sounds like he’s saying it’s a mere parable—a fiction designed to teach a lesson.
The problem is that's not at all what the linked article says. It says: Even given that the Pope did not deny the miraculous nature of the account, what difference would it make if he had? There is no dogma of the Church about what that passage means, and there's nothing in the passage itself that declares that what happened was miraculous. What the story says is that they ended up with more leftover food than what they thought they started out with. The work of creation is over; there's no question of additional loaves or fish being created ex nihilo. The passages also say nothing about anything being "multiplied." The passages present the event as a 'great wonder' that is meant to be accepted by the reader as a proof of the divine origin of Jesus' teaching. It seems reasonable to assume that any attempt to explain how the leftover food got there would have been viewed by the Gospels' authors as idle speculation at best, and impiety at worst.
The pope is not infallible. The pope can issue a dogmatic definition issued ex cathedra on matters of faith or morals. These, according to Roman Catholic teaching contained in the constitution Pastor aeternus, are infallible. Unless the pope fuflils certain criteria laid down in Pastor aeternus what he states is not infallible. The pope may be free, according to Roman Catholic teaching, from making doctrinal errors but he is not personally infallible on everything.
That is a very technical response. In humility, my confessor said that I should pray for the pope. It would be disrespectful to say that the pope is not intelligent or a heinous sinner. He studied for many years, and his priority is the poor and unborn.
we do not read the bible like some isolated artifact… the Bible is meant for, and read within the living body, the Church, and in the church there’s never been doubt about that passage’s meaning
And as I’ve already demonstrated, what the Pope has said on the subject hasn’t violated that meaning. No one here is suggesting that one should. Inquiring into how the original intended audience would have understood the event is a standard part of exegesis. It’s not at all clear to me what point you’re trying to make, now that the central claim of your argument has been refuted (by your own cited source, no less).
It is a direct response to something you said. The claim you made is often one made by non-Catholics to criticise Roman Catholicism. My answer, whilst being correct, is one that Roman Catholics often make in defence of the false claims sometimes made by non-Catholics. There is nothing wrong at all in praying for the pope. I sometimes pray for him. I was not advocating that you should not pray for him. I do not see anyone making this claim. I am not making it. Whilst the adjective 'heinous' does not apply the pope is a sinner like the rest of us. That's why even popes go to confession.
We should indeed pray for the Pope, in part because he's seen by most as the world's most visible and highly placed Christian. Nobody said he's unintelligent, and I'm sure we all agree that his dedication to the the poor and unborn is commendable. However, that doesn't mean his publicly praying to a pagan idol shouldn't be discussed for what it is.