Pope Francis has lost his way says Cardinal Raymond Burke

Nick the Pilot

Nick the Pilot

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
94
Points
48
Location
Tokyo, Japan
Pope Francis has lost his way says Cardinal Raymond Burke - IrishCentral.com

"In an interview with the Spanish Catholic weekly Vida Nueva this week Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis, compared the Roman Catholic Church under Francis to “a ship without a rudder.”

"It’s the latest shocking salvo from the conservative firebrand, who is increasingly dismissive of his infallible leader.

"Burke, 66, said he was not speaking out against the pope personally, but rather “raising concerns” about the quality of his leadership.

“Many have expressed their concerns to me. At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the church is like a ship without a rudder,” Burke, a Wisconsin native with Tipperary roots said.

"Having emerged as the voice of conservative Catholicism in the US, the outspoken cardinal is increasingly positioning himself as the biggest roadblock to Pope Francis’ reformist agenda.

"But Burke has reasons other than spiritual ones to have soured on Francis’ leadership. The head of the Vatican’s highest court, he has confirmed to the press that he will soon be demoted by Francis to the ceremonial job of patron of the Order of Malta, a position without influence."
(cont.)
 
Oops, I meant Galileo.

"Galileo's initial discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.

"...the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "gravely suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642."

Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pope, if he had 'infallible powers', could have easily stopped the persecution of Galileo by the Inquisition, but he didn't. The pope could have also easily stopped the nonsense of a geocentric solar system, but he didn't do that either.
 
I was aware of him at least. Yes I suspect there will always be politics surrounding any seat of power, more so with the backdrop of the Renaissance.
 
I am very much concerned about what happened in 1630, because it proves (to me) that the Pope does not have 'infallible powers'.
 
Looking at wils link, no one is suggesting he has infallible powers, if he did Burke wouldn't be able to say what he is saying. I hope Thomas comes to clear it up, but I guess it is more of a power structure, no one should be able to prevent the pope from acting. Not that everything he does is fluffy candy and rainbows. His actions could have horrible consequences but a position of undisputed powers have been a important part in the stability we enjoy today. A necessary evil. An argument can be made for it at least, put more then that is down to opinion I think.
 
"...no one is suggesting he has infallible powers..."

--> Thomas has made it clear that the Pope, at certain times and under certain conditions, can issue written documents that are 'infallible'. Sounds pretty infallible to me.
 
Indeed, and they are exceedingly rare. What realm they concern I don't know though.
 
"What realm they concern I don't know..."

--> If the Pope really had 'infallible powers', the whole Catholic-Galileo disaster would never have happened.
 
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Pope had 'infallible powers'. If he did, he would have marched right into the Inquisition courtroom and said, "Geocentrisim (the sun revolves around the sun) is wrong and heliocentrism (the earth revolves around the sun) is right. All of you are wrong and Galileo is right. Let him go." The Pope didn't do this because he, too, believed in geocentrism. He didn't believe in heliocentrism because his 'infallible powers' didn't tell him to believe in heliocentrism, because he doesn't have the 'infallible powers' that Catholics claim he has.

Also, if the Pope had 'infallible powers', none of this would have come up because the Church would have taught heliocentrism from the beginning, and Galileo would have never been dragged before the Inquisition in the first place.

There is also the idea that the Inquisition wouldn't have listened to the Pope. Rediculuous!

And, if the Pope had 'infallible powers', he would have 'seen' all the bad PR the Church would be getting about this in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The fact that Pope allowed all of this nonsense to go on, when he could have easily stopped it with his 'infallible powers' proves he doesn't have 'infallible powers'. No other possibility makes any sense.
 
Thomas has actually explained the definition...and the case with Gallileo, and the apologies, and the Catholic viewpoint on the matter....if SG were around it would have been posted by now...I can't find it.
 
Nick, did your read wils article? I know it isn't from the Vatican itself but it's the best source posted on this thread so for, the text makes it very clear that the popes infallibility isn't defined as you define it. It actually takes what you're saying as an actual example of what it isn't. It is not a superpower from God.

Check out the link, I had a hard time following some of the things but at least it ruled some of the stuff out.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
I am very much concerned about what happened in 1630, because it proves (to me) that the Pope does not have 'infallible powers'.
Click to expand...
According to James Carroll's excellent book, Constantine's Sword, the concept of Papal Infallibility is quite recent. It became doctrine in the 19th century. I don't remember the year--or the Pope--but Carroll didn't think much about that particular Pope.

Also, it doesn't mean that the Pope can't make mistakes. It means that certain pronouncements by the Pope are infallible. And I believe that they make those announcements pretty rarely.
 
LS, you said,

"...it doesn't mean that the Pope can't make mistakes. It means that certain pronouncements by the Pope are infallible."

--> Thomas has explained how a Pope's everyday thoughts and comments are his own and not necessarily infallible. But Thomas also made the point that, at certain times and under certain circumstances, a Pope can release written documents that are 'infallible'. So the Catholics are saying that the Pope can make mistakes when making offhand remarks about, say, the political situation in the Middle East, but they are also saying that if the Pope were to issue one of his 'infallible documents' on the political situation in the Middle East, there would be no 'mistakes'.

Which is pretty much what you are saying.

If it became doctrine in the 19th century, it makes me wonder why it didn't become doctrine a lot sooner. Isn't that when the Pope's authority began to wane? And isn't that when science really began to have an impact on society (and began to directly refute the Church's teachings)? It's amazing to think about how modern science has only been around for a couple of hundred years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top