7 ms·

Many Catholics I know were absolutely shaken by this Pope, and were absolutely not supporters of the man. They thought he was too liberal and too modern.

throwawaybob420 2y ago
That sucks, because if you’re catholic and you _dont_ support the pope…you’re not really a catholic
- rgreek42 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throwawaybob420 2y ago
    that’s HN for ya
  - jenadine 2y ago
    There is more to catholicism than just liking the pope.
  - prometheus76 2y ago
    I don't know exactly what you mean by "support the Pope", but your simple binary division between "Roman Catholic or Protestant" ignores a lot of the historical tensions between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. There's also the whole issue with the Oriental Orthodox Church, which went into schism after the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which was LONG before the Great Schism in 1054. How do they fit into your categorization? You might find it interesting to study more details about the history of Christianity. It's not so simple as "Love Pope or Reject Pope."
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Not exactly the same, but this sounds very similar to saying "if you don't support the president, you're not an American".
- Loughla 2y ago
  You're correct. For many modern Catholics, it's about inertia. They've always been Catholic, but they want to do it their way. That's the entire purpose of the Catholic Church - to tell you exactly how to do church. Is also why there are so many converts from Catholicism to New age sorts of Christian churches.
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  It is possible to be a Catholic and not support the direction that the Pope is taking the church; in the same way it is possible to disagree with the direction that the local priest is taking the parish. It is possible to look at someone as the leader of an organization you are part of, and treat them with respect, while not agreeing with every choice they make.
- mvieira38 2y ago
  Catholics are not obliged to follow the pope in matters not related to faith and morals, and even then not when he speaks as a private person instead of in the voice of the Church (the same sex marriage interview as a prime example where he directly states it is his own private opinion). Though every catholic IS obliged to pray for the pope and defend his legitimacy and claim to power, which I suppose could constitute a degree of obligatory support
yusina 2y ago
[flagged]
- stonemetal12 2y ago
  >Isn't the pope infallible, by definition? No, the Pope isn't infallible by definition. Catholics believe he is capable of making infallible statements, but it isn't a 24/7 eats breakfast infallibly superpower and not every statement is infallible.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - numbers_guy 2y ago
    No the Pope is not infallible and you can disagree with the Pope. Sure. But you cannot use that as a cop out to turn Catholicism into an arbitrary Protestant sect where you make up moral values as you go based on your political inclinations. The whole point of Catholicism is that you have a whole institution whose job it is to guide the Church. If you believe you know better than the clergy on every single topic, you are by definition a Protestant. Lots of these Protesting Catholics have worldviews that are entirely incompatible with the fundamentals of Catholicism, but they do not want to drop the Catholic aesthetic, because it gives them an air of superiority over their fellow Protestants which they look down upon.
- jcmfernandes 2y ago
  The pope, as all humans, is fallible. It's only when speaks ex cathedra that his teachings are considered infallible. These are very rare (Francis never did it). Now, I agree with you. As a Catholic, I'll support any pope, i.e., I want them to do good. That doesn't mean I have to be fond of him. I really liked Francis, though. I'm afraid I'll deeply miss his wisdom.
  - skissane 2y ago
    > It's only when speaks ex cathedra that his teachings are considered infallible. That's the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium. The Catholic Church also teaches that the Pope possesses the infallibility of the "ordinary and universal magisterium", which makes less than ex cathedra statements infallible, when he teaches something and (almost) all Catholic bishops agree with the teaching. But, I think many Catholic theologians would say, that whatever infallible teaching Francis gave by the ordinary magisterium, was largely just a repetition of what his recent predecessors had taught, without any significant doctrinal developments. (Probably the biggest point of contention is the status of his catechism change on the death penalty, but I think even the majority of theologians who support the change wouldn't argue it was infallible.) An example of a teaching which many Catholic theologians say is infallible ordinary magisterium is John Paul II's 1994 declaration that women can't be ordained as priests (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) [0] – which wasn't teaching anything new per se, but arguably the first time it had been stated with such explicitness and solemnity An interesting meta issue, is that theologians debate which papal statements are infallible, but the judgement of a statement as infallible isn't itself infallible. So, while Cardinal Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict XVI) issued an official declaration in 1995 stating it was infallible ordinary and universal magisterium, [1] that declaration itself isn't infallible – and some (progressive-leaning) Catholic theologians have argued the declaration is mistaken. [2] Conversely, a minority of (conservative-leaning) Catholic theologians go beyond Ratzinger and argue Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible extraordinary magisterium (ex cathedra). [3] Some even argue the Pope can teach infallibly and then erroneously claim he wasn't doing so. [4] [0] https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters... [1] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docu... [2] https://womenpriests.org/teaching-authority/mag-con2-theologians-assess-ordinatio-sacerdotalis/ https://womenpriests.org/teaching-authority/mag-con2-theolog... [3] https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=835 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?rec... [4] https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/i-agree-with-dr-feser-99-953/ https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/i-agree-with-d...
mbfg 2y ago
That's the problem with calling yourself X, without a clear non-subjective definition of X.
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
Christ welcomed the poor, prostitutes, lepers, and thieves into his fold. Many Catholics are like a lot of Evangelicals in that they're Christian in name only. Their political beliefs ARE their faith and their religious beliefs are just a convenient shield for their politics. They like to associate with the man, but have taken zero time to understand him. The only time Jesus was openly hostile in the entirety of the Bible was when there were people trying to make a profit in the Temple. Contrast that to people who will attend a megachurch but hate gay folks. Francis did not condone gay marriage. He simply said that if a gay couple comes to you for pastoral advice, that you love them and attempt to give them the help they need. But you'd think the dude was prancing around in rainbow underwear on camera with the way people reacted to his love and grace.
- lambdaphagy 2y ago
  I think what many Catholics found frustrating about Pope Francis was his tendency to make apparently off-the-cuff remarks which, while never quite explicitly straying outside the bounds of faith and morals defined by the Magisterium, often seemed to strongly imply the opposite. This was especially true for audiences that did not already know the Catechism through and through, which even most Catholics do not. In that sense, Pope Francis's remarks sometimes seemed to possess a kind of not-committing-heresy-can't-get-mad character. This was exacerbated in turn by the media's selective quotation of statements that were, if quite reasonable in their entirety, not exactly robust to misinterpretation. Although I personally wish Pope Francis had done certain things differently, God chose him for a reason. I will try reflect on that as I, along with the Church, pray for him.
  - aaronbaugher 2y ago
    Pope St. Pius X put it in Pascendi: "It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast." Francis, like other Modernists, had the knack of saying heretical things in a way that the intended effect was obvious, but his defenders could say, "He never said that! And here's how you could interpret him in a completely consistent with Catholic teaching." Or they'd argue that he was speaking off-the-cuff and shouldn't be taken literally, or that he was misquoted by an atheist interviewer (to whom he kept giving interviews and never corrected the record). But everyone who wasn't in denial knew what he was doing.

throwawaybob420 2y ago

That sucks, because if you’re catholic and you _dont_ support the pope…you’re not really a catholic

rgreek42 2y ago
[flagged]
- throwawaybob420 2y ago
  that’s HN for ya
- jenadine 2y ago
  There is more to catholicism than just liking the pope.
- prometheus76 2y ago
  I don't know exactly what you mean by "support the Pope", but your simple binary division between "Roman Catholic or Protestant" ignores a lot of the historical tensions between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. There's also the whole issue with the Oriental Orthodox Church, which went into schism after the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which was LONG before the Great Schism in 1054. How do they fit into your categorization? You might find it interesting to study more details about the history of Christianity. It's not so simple as "Love Pope or Reject Pope."
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Not exactly the same, but this sounds very similar to saying "if you don't support the president, you're not an American".
Loughla 2y ago
You're correct. For many modern Catholics, it's about inertia. They've always been Catholic, but they want to do it their way. That's the entire purpose of the Catholic Church - to tell you exactly how to do church. Is also why there are so many converts from Catholicism to New age sorts of Christian churches.
RHSeeger 2y ago
It is possible to be a Catholic and not support the direction that the Pope is taking the church; in the same way it is possible to disagree with the direction that the local priest is taking the parish. It is possible to look at someone as the leader of an organization you are part of, and treat them with respect, while not agreeing with every choice they make.
mvieira38 2y ago
Catholics are not obliged to follow the pope in matters not related to faith and morals, and even then not when he speaks as a private person instead of in the voice of the Church (the same sex marriage interview as a prime example where he directly states it is his own private opinion). Though every catholic IS obliged to pray for the pope and defend his legitimacy and claim to power, which I suppose could constitute a degree of obligatory support

yusina 2y ago

[flagged]

stonemetal12 2y ago
>Isn't the pope infallible, by definition? No, the Pope isn't infallible by definition. Catholics believe he is capable of making infallible statements, but it isn't a 24/7 eats breakfast infallibly superpower and not every statement is infallible.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- numbers_guy 2y ago
  No the Pope is not infallible and you can disagree with the Pope. Sure. But you cannot use that as a cop out to turn Catholicism into an arbitrary Protestant sect where you make up moral values as you go based on your political inclinations. The whole point of Catholicism is that you have a whole institution whose job it is to guide the Church. If you believe you know better than the clergy on every single topic, you are by definition a Protestant. Lots of these Protesting Catholics have worldviews that are entirely incompatible with the fundamentals of Catholicism, but they do not want to drop the Catholic aesthetic, because it gives them an air of superiority over their fellow Protestants which they look down upon.
jcmfernandes 2y ago
The pope, as all humans, is fallible. It's only when speaks ex cathedra that his teachings are considered infallible. These are very rare (Francis never did it). Now, I agree with you. As a Catholic, I'll support any pope, i.e., I want them to do good. That doesn't mean I have to be fond of him. I really liked Francis, though. I'm afraid I'll deeply miss his wisdom.
- skissane 2y ago
  > It's only when speaks ex cathedra that his teachings are considered infallible. That's the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium. The Catholic Church also teaches that the Pope possesses the infallibility of the "ordinary and universal magisterium", which makes less than ex cathedra statements infallible, when he teaches something and (almost) all Catholic bishops agree with the teaching. But, I think many Catholic theologians would say, that whatever infallible teaching Francis gave by the ordinary magisterium, was largely just a repetition of what his recent predecessors had taught, without any significant doctrinal developments. (Probably the biggest point of contention is the status of his catechism change on the death penalty, but I think even the majority of theologians who support the change wouldn't argue it was infallible.) An example of a teaching which many Catholic theologians say is infallible ordinary magisterium is John Paul II's 1994 declaration that women can't be ordained as priests (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) [0] – which wasn't teaching anything new per se, but arguably the first time it had been stated with such explicitness and solemnity An interesting meta issue, is that theologians debate which papal statements are infallible, but the judgement of a statement as infallible isn't itself infallible. So, while Cardinal Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict XVI) issued an official declaration in 1995 stating it was infallible ordinary and universal magisterium, [1] that declaration itself isn't infallible – and some (progressive-leaning) Catholic theologians have argued the declaration is mistaken. [2] Conversely, a minority of (conservative-leaning) Catholic theologians go beyond Ratzinger and argue Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible extraordinary magisterium (ex cathedra). [3] Some even argue the Pope can teach infallibly and then erroneously claim he wasn't doing so. [4] [0] https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters... [1] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docu... [2] https://womenpriests.org/teaching-authority/mag-con2-theologians-assess-ordinatio-sacerdotalis/ https://womenpriests.org/teaching-authority/mag-con2-theolog... [3] https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=835 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?rec... [4] https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/i-agree-with-dr-feser-99-953/ https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/i-agree-with-d...

mbfg 2y ago

That's the problem with calling yourself X, without a clear non-subjective definition of X.

MisterBastahrd 2y ago

Christ welcomed the poor, prostitutes, lepers, and thieves into his fold. Many Catholics are like a lot of Evangelicals in that they're Christian in name only. Their political beliefs ARE their faith and their religious beliefs are just a convenient shield for their politics. They like to associate with the man, but have taken zero time to understand him. The only time Jesus was openly hostile in the entirety of the Bible was when there were people trying to make a profit in the Temple. Contrast that to people who will attend a megachurch but hate gay folks. Francis did not condone gay marriage. He simply said that if a gay couple comes to you for pastoral advice, that you love them and attempt to give them the help they need. But you'd think the dude was prancing around in rainbow underwear on camera with the way people reacted to his love and grace.

lambdaphagy 2y ago
I think what many Catholics found frustrating about Pope Francis was his tendency to make apparently off-the-cuff remarks which, while never quite explicitly straying outside the bounds of faith and morals defined by the Magisterium, often seemed to strongly imply the opposite. This was especially true for audiences that did not already know the Catechism through and through, which even most Catholics do not. In that sense, Pope Francis's remarks sometimes seemed to possess a kind of not-committing-heresy-can't-get-mad character. This was exacerbated in turn by the media's selective quotation of statements that were, if quite reasonable in their entirety, not exactly robust to misinterpretation. Although I personally wish Pope Francis had done certain things differently, God chose him for a reason. I will try reflect on that as I, along with the Church, pray for him.
- aaronbaugher 2y ago
  Pope St. Pius X put it in Pascendi: "It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast." Francis, like other Modernists, had the knack of saying heretical things in a way that the intended effect was obvious, but his defenders could say, "He never said that! And here's how you could interpret him in a completely consistent with Catholic teaching." Or they'd argue that he was speaking off-the-cuff and shouldn't be taken literally, or that he was misquoted by an atheist interviewer (to whom he kept giving interviews and never corrected the record). But everyone who wasn't in denial knew what he was doing.