Filial Correction of Pope Francis

[serb1389]

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/09/CORRECTION.html?m=1

RORATE Note: There will many Catholics, even traditionalists, whose first defeatist reaction will be to belittle this effort. But the wise, the learned in history, will understand that this is just the first part, the first piece of the puzzle, with next steps still to come in a long and extended process.

This first step is an initiative of a theological nature that will likely lead, God willing, to an initiative of a canonical nature from those who have the mandate to act. And so it begins:

 

[serb1389]

Thoughts on this?  I'm trying to figure out how important this all is?

 

[Vanhyo]

If the conspiracy theories are true, and mansonry & other dark groups have their grip on the vatican, we can expect schism, maybe the creation of another trad-group that claims to be the Church.

 

[Iconodule]

I suspect that anyone who was going to split off voluntarily has already done so, and that the current opposition will resist the urge regardless of how many outrages are thrown at them. The only way I see them leaving is by mass expulsion/ excommunication or something really drastic that not even Pope Francis would try, eg ordaining women.

 

[MalpanaGiwargis]

I suspect that anyone who was going to split off voluntarily has already done so, and that the current opposition will resist the urge regardless of how many outrages are thrown at them. The only way I see them leaving is by mass expulsion/ excommunication or something really drastic that not even Pope Francis would try, eg ordaining women.

Pretty much. Even the SSPX continues to claim loyalty to Rome while rejecting basically everything Rome has done since the mid-60s – the Vatican's pull is strong indeed!

 

[Sharbel]

[quote author=Pope Francis]TL;DR[/quote]

 

[Gunnarr]

After reading it , it reminds me a lot of the "confession of faith against ecumenism" document from those in the Church of Greece. Except this one has only one bishop, and it is about remarriage, and admiration for Luther by the Pope.


I don't think this document is very important because not enough are signing, at least at this moment. But even if many sign, including bishops, it means nothing, because bishops in the Roman Catholic Church seem to have no real use when compared to the Pope. There could be a hundred bishop signatures and it would still not have an effect except to exert pressure, not even councils can supersede the authority of the pope.

It is even less impactful than portrayed. In Greece, recently a monastery brotherhood stopped comemmorating their bishop because of their acceptance of the council of crete. Sure, it will cause people to complain and people will think it is important, but the bishop is not going to change his ways, he is simply doubling down and persecuting them.

In my opinion, the Pope will not concede to these voices against him either. I expect he will continue to ignore their complaints, until his death. There is no reason for him to do anything else, to attack them will cause a great scandal, and to concede to them will cause a great scandal (and he will be going against his convictions), so to ignore it and stay with your convictions is the obvious action.

The world is not taking the side of the traditionalists, the Pope knows he has majority support of the church (most laity will surely support remarriage, they do not care about the traditionalist argument they do not have the time to even entertain it), and most secularists support his reforms. No reason to turn back now

 

[Iconodule]

[quote author=Pope Francis]TL;DR

[/quote]

Yeah, I'm thinking along the lines of the "sorrowful epistles", except with even less effect.

 

[Vanhyo]

[quote author=Pope Francis]TL;DR

[/quote]
Pretty much the case, atheist panda doesn't care.

 

[Agabus]

If you look at the list of signatories, it's a). no one important, and b). a long list of cranks (e.g. Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, etc.).

FWIW, Pope JPII was also given a Filial Correction at one point, and you see how much import it had.

 

[Iconodule]

Well, Bishop Fellay is somewhat important. But yeah.

 

[Agabus]

Well, Bishop Fellay is somewhat important. But yeah.

Exactly. He's the heaviest hitter of the whole bunch.

 

[Volnutt]

[quote author=Pope Francis]TL;DR

Pretty much the case, atheist panda doesn't care.
[/quote]

That seems a little much.

 

[serb1389]

If you look at the list of signatories, it's a). no one important, and b). a long list of cranks (e.g. Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, etc.).

FWIW, Pope JPII was also given a Filial Correction at one point, and you see how much import it had.

I had read an article that said that this one WAS important because of it's claim of heresy.  No? 

 

[serb1389]

There could be a hundred bishop signatures and it would still not have an effect except to exert pressure, not even councils can supersede the authority of the pope.

Do you have anything to back up this claim/statement?  I wasn't aware that this is the case. 

 

[MalpanaGiwargis]

There could be a hundred bishop signatures and it would still not have an effect except to exert pressure, not even councils can supersede the authority of the pope.

Do you have anything to back up this claim/statement?  I wasn't aware that this is the case.

In Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the Pope is supreme, not just with respect to other individual bishops, but even to an ecumenical council since, according to this line of thinking, a council cannot be ecumenical if the Pope does not ratify it. You can see this explicitly in Vatican I and Vatican II, where the decrees are promulgated by the Pope, not by the Councils themselves. Pope Paul VI walked back the language slightly by saying he was promulgating after "the approval of the Council Fathers," but it is still promulgated in his name.

 

[Iconodule]

Right. It is still ostensibly possible for a Pope to be deposed. For instance, if he formally teaches heresy, he is supposedly no longer a real Pope. But there really isn't a mechanism for enforcing this, certainly nothing like the clear structure of Papal supremacy laid out in Pastor Aeternus, Lumen Gentium, etc. In fact they seem to go out of their way to contradict the conciliarists and say that, while the councils need the leadership and approval of the Pope, he can act without any input from them.

 

[serb1389]

I didn't realize papal authority went that far.  thanks for the update! 

 

[Asteriktos]

Orthodox really did miss an opportunity (theologically) on this point at the Council of Florence, which was an important landmark among a number of western Councils disputing exactly this point: should an Ecumenical Council be the highest authority in Roman Catholicism and able to overrule a pope (conciliarism).

 

[Porter ODoran]

I think you may be taking the council at Florence far too ingenuously.

 

[Iconodule]

I think, for reasons that Met John Zizioulas has laid out, conciliarism is highly problematic in its own way. Also, the Orthodox were really a sideshow at Florence. Whether they went to Florence or Basel they were a feather in the respective party's cap. It's unlikely they would have really decided anything.

 

[Porter ODoran]

I think, for reasons that Met John Zizioulas has laid out, conciliarism is highly problematic in its own way. Also, the Orthodox were really a sideshow at Florence. Whether they went to Florence or Basel they were a feather in the respective party's cap. It's unlikely they would have really decided anything.

Can you bullet-point the Metropolitan's anxieties?

 

[Iconodule]

I think, for reasons that Met John Zizioulas has laid out, conciliarism is highly problematic in its own way. Also, the Orthodox were really a sideshow at Florence. Whether they went to Florence or Basel they were a feather in the respective party's cap. It's unlikely they would have really decided anything.

Can you bullet-point the Metropolitan's anxieties?

His thoughts are best read in his own words: http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/F2f.htm

 

[Porter ODoran]

Thank you.

 

[Volnutt]

I think, for reasons that Met John Zizioulas has laid out, conciliarism is highly problematic in its own way. Also, the Orthodox were really a sideshow at Florence. Whether they went to Florence or Basel they were a feather in the respective party's cap. It's unlikely they would have really decided anything.

Can you bullet-point the Metropolitan's anxieties?

His thoughts are best read in his own words: http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/F2f.htm

It's funny, if "local Church" didn't really mean "local bishopric," he'd basically have a Baptist understanding of Church government AFAICT. Does the Met. get put on blast a lot for this piece?

 

[Iconodule]

I don't see why he should. It seems to me that every time Orthodox quote Saint Ignatius of Antioch, "Wherever the bishop is , there is the church," in polemics with Rome, they are essentially supporting this model. Hive-Papacy is something else.

 

[Porter ODoran]

I'm sorry but that's the most ridiculous combined attempt at doublespeak and hipsterism I've read in years. That's just -- bad. "Hive papacy" -- like "consolidated anarchy" or "lush baldness"?

 

[Iconodule]

I'm sorry but that's the most ridiculous combined attempt at doublespeak and hipsterism I've read in years. That's just -- bad. "Hive papacy" -- like "consolidated anarchy" or "lush baldness"?

You're cool

 

[Porter ODoran]

Obviously councils can be abused. At present, the system most being abused and exposed as farcical sophistry is democracy, so even "the people" are not magical. However, to argue councils of diverse churchmen are comparable to a papacy by nature, in theory, in history, or scripturally is to make a joke of all category and discernment. I don't want to imagine what motivated the man.

 

[Volnutt]

I don't see why he should. It seems to me that every time Orthodox quote Saint Ignatius of Antioch, "Wherever the bishop is , there is the church," in polemics with Rome, they are essentially supporting this model. Hive-Papacy is something else.

Well, I'm glad he doesn't.

 

[Volnutt]

Obviously councils can be abused. At present, the system most being abused and exposed as farcical sophistry is democracy, so even "the people" are not magical. However, to argue councils of diverse churchmen are comparable to a papacy by nature, in theory, in history, or scripturally is to make a joke of all category and discernment. I don't want to imagine what motivated the man.

First, like you'd even be Orthodox if the US was an absolute monarchy. You'd likely be dead, actually. Show a little gratitude.

Second, pretty sure Met. Zizioulas was saying the complete opposite of that.

 

[Iconodule]

Obviously councils can be abused. At present, the system most being abused and exposed as farcical sophistry is democracy, so even "the people" are not magical. However, to argue councils of diverse churchmen are comparable to a papacy by nature, in theory, in history, or scripturally is to make a joke of all category and discernment. I don't want to imagine what motivated the man.

Except he didn't say that. You are a pathological liar.

 

[Volnutt]

Obviously councils can be abused. At present, the system most being abused and exposed as farcical sophistry is democracy, so even "the people" are not magical. However, to argue councils of diverse churchmen are comparable to a papacy by nature, in theory, in history, or scripturally is to make a joke of all category and discernment. I don't want to imagine what motivated the man.

Except he didn't say that. You are a pathological liar.

I love how he's "the Metropolitan" until Porter decides he disagrees with him. Then he's "the man" with wicked unimaginable motives.

 

[Antonis]

Obviously councils can be abused. At present, the system most being abused and exposed as farcical sophistry is democracy, so even "the people" are not magical. However, to argue councils of diverse churchmen are comparable to a papacy by nature, in theory, in history, or scripturally is to make a joke of all category and discernment. I don't want to imagine what motivated the man.

What happened to you that has suddenly turned you against your Mother Church which has reared you in all love and piety? You were once, I thought, a faithful Greek!

 

[Antonis]

Obviously councils can be abused. At present, the system most being abused and exposed as farcical sophistry is democracy, so even "the people" are not magical. However, to argue councils of diverse churchmen are comparable to a papacy by nature, in theory, in history, or scripturally is to make a joke of all category and discernment. I don't want to imagine what motivated the man.

Except he didn't say that. You are a pathological liar.

Iconodule,

Please try to watch the ad hominems.

Thanks,

Antonis
Section Moderator

 

[Porter ODoran]

Obviously councils can be abused. At present, the system most being abused and exposed as farcical sophistry is democracy, so even "the people" are not magical. However, to argue councils of diverse churchmen are comparable to a papacy by nature, in theory, in history, or scripturally is to make a joke of all category and discernment. I don't want to imagine what motivated the man.

What happened to you that has suddenly turned you against your Mother Church which has reared you in all love and piety? You were once, I thought, a faithful Greek!

Well struck. But I'm addressing specific content, and I'd invite you to do the same when you next voice your concerns.

 

[serb1389]

I for one would greatly appreciate the conversation getting back to the OP.  If you all want to discuss something else with each other, that's why we have a Private Message system