Thereby showing their true overriding dogma, and it has less to do with Christ than it does with politics. This is so embarrassing for everyone involved. In a time where extremism is killing...
Conservatives want Catholic bishops to denounce pope as heretic
Thereby showing their true overriding dogma, and it has less to do with Christ than it does with politics. This is so embarrassing for everyone involved.
The letter attacks Francis for allegedly softening the Church’s stance on a range of subjects. They say he has not been outspoken enough against abortion and has been too welcoming to homosexuals and too accommodating to Protestants and Muslims.
In a time where extremism is killing people all over the world, they want their church to be more extreme.
But they're asking for him to be denounced as a heretic because of the religious positions he has taken: If he's not proclaiming the true Christian faith as the Catholic Church sees it, then he is...
Thereby showing their true overriding dogma, and it has nothing to do less to do with Christ than it does with politics.
But they're asking for him to be denounced as a heretic because of the religious positions he has taken:
The letter attacks Francis for allegedly softening the Church’s stance on a range of subjects. They say he has not been outspoken enough against abortion and has been too welcoming to homosexuals and too accommodating to Protestants and Muslims.
It attacks him for having once said that the intentions of Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, “were not mistaken”.
It attacked the pope for a common statement with a prominent Muslim leader in Abu Dhabi in February which said the pluralism and diversity of religions was “willed by God”. Conservatives say the Roman Catholic Church is the only true one and that members are called to convert others to it.
It asks them to “publicly to admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies that he has professed”.
If he's not proclaiming the true Christian faith as the Catholic Church sees it, then he is a heretic in the Catholic Church's eyes. And, he's not, so he is.
The fact that many of us outside the Catholic Church might like and agree with Pope Francis' ideas is irrelevant. The point is that the Pope is supposed to uphold the Catholic version of the Christian faith, and he's not: he's changing it.
But isn't Catholic dogma also that the Pope is the literal infallible earthly voice of God? By their own rules, he gets the final say when it comes to interpretation of a tricky, allegorical, and...
But isn't Catholic dogma also that the Pope is the literal infallible earthly voice of God? By their own rules, he gets the final say when it comes to interpretation of a tricky, allegorical, and much-translated text.
Only up to a point. If a Pope started telling people there is no God and the Catholic Church has got it wrong all these years... I'm pretty sure they'd boot him out, quick-smart. There are limits...
But isn't Catholic dogma also that the Pope is the literal infallible earthly voice of God?
Only up to a point. If a Pope started telling people there is no God and the Catholic Church has got it wrong all these years... I'm pretty sure they'd boot him out, quick-smart. There are limits to the Pope's supposed infallibility.
Also remember that the Church itself created that dogma of papal infallibility: even though it had been assumed for centuries, it was only formalised 150 years ago, by a gathering of Church leaders. If the Church can giveth, the Church can also taketh away...
For those curious about it, here is also some additional information from catholic.com: Papal Infallibility
For those curious about it, here is also some additional information from catholic.com: Papal Infallibility
Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
Vatican II’s Explanation
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 (“Feed my sheep . . . “), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter . . . “).
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Definitely a fair point, but one that I figure makes it even more overtly political rather than spiritual. His views are at least as well backed by scripture as theirs (arguably more so, given the...
Definitely a fair point, but one that I figure makes it even more overtly political rather than spiritual. His views are at least as well backed by scripture as theirs (arguably more so, given the emphasis on the whole "love thy neighbor" bit that seems to have been otherwise lost), yet they choose to challenge his authority rather than defer to it. They're claiming the sanctity of the rules on one hand while breaking them with the other.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty much always in favour of challenging authority, but the hypocrisy here frustrates me.
"Love thy neighbour" doesn't extend to "thy neighbour's religious views are just as valid as thine own". It also doesn't extend to "Thou canst adapt thy religious dogma to accommodate thy...
His views are at least as well backed by scripture as theirs (arguably more so, given the emphasis on the whole "love thy neighbor" bit that seems to have been otherwise lost),
"Love thy neighbour" doesn't extend to "thy neighbour's religious views are just as valid as thine own". It also doesn't extend to "Thou canst adapt thy religious dogma to accommodate thy neighbour's non-doctrinal wishes".
Abortion is murder, and "Thou shalt not kill" is a fairly central rule in the Christian faith. It's one of the Top Ten rules, in fact.
Homosexuality is an abomination in the Christian faith.
The centrality of the Pope in the Catholic faith, as the spiritual successor to Saint Peter, is dogma. Protestant churches which deny that are not on the right side of this theological argument, according to the Catholic Church.
For the Pope, who is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, to be openly contradicting these Catholic doctrines is not a minor matter. In some Catholics' eyes, he's changing their very faith.
The Pope is only considered infallible when he declares himself to be. When he invokes "Ex Cathedra". The last (and only) time a sitting Pope invoked "Ex Cathedra" was in 1950, and that was to...
The Pope is only considered infallible when he declares himself to be. When he invokes "Ex Cathedra".
The last (and only) time a sitting Pope invoked "Ex Cathedra" was in 1950, and that was to declare the "Assumption of Mary" to be an article of faith.
The "true Christian faith" has to ultimately be rooted in Christ's teachings though, right? It seems like these people would call Jesus himself a heretic for being "too accommodating".
The "true Christian faith" has to ultimately be rooted in Christ's teachings though, right? It seems like these people would call Jesus himself a heretic for being "too accommodating".
Yes. However... For starters, I deliberately wrote "the true Christian faith as the Catholic Church sees it". There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, all claiming to be the true...
The "true Christian faith" has to ultimately be rooted in Christ's teachings though, right?
Yes.
However...
For starters, I deliberately wrote "the true Christian faith as the Catholic Church sees it". There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, all claiming to be the true Christian faith. The Catholic Church is merely one claimant among many to the title, with its own particular spin on Christianity.
For nexts, "Christ's teachings" means different things to different people.
To some, it refers to the entire catalogue of beliefs contained in the Bible (and even the definition of "Bible" can vary). As the common aphorism goes: no matter what opinion you have, you can find something in the Bible to support it. For example, both pro- and anti-slavery campaigners back in the day were able to draw on the Bible to support their contradictory points of view.
To some, "Christ's teachings" refers primarily to the writings in the New Testament, written roughly contemporaneously with Jesus' life or after his death - with the Old Testament merely a back-up where it doesn't contradict the New Testament. Because how can the Old Testament be part of Christ's teachings if it was written before he was born?
To some, "Christ's teachings" refers solely to the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the four canonical gospels. In this category, there are even atheist Christians: people who don't believe in God, but follow the teachings of the wise human being called Yeshua, who is also known as Jesus Christ.
So, even rooting a so-called "true Christian faith" in Christ's teachings leaves a lot of wiggle room for people to decide what are and are not considered Christ's teachings.
And that's before we even get to interpreting those teachings. The books of the Bible were written in a variety of languages over hundreds of years, in societies unlike our own. How do we properly translate those words into words of our own language, and how do we properly interpret the meaning of those words for our current times?
There's a lot of scope for variation here, which is why there can be over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, all calling themselves the "true Christian faith".
There certainly is great scope for interpretation on many things, but it would seem to me that "Christ's teachings" should at the very least include the words and actions of Jesus as recorded in...
There certainly is great scope for interpretation on many things, but it would seem to me that "Christ's teachings" should at the very least include the words and actions of Jesus as recorded in the gospels as a major component. Given his words and actions toward outcasts and "others" along with his words and actions towards self-righteous religious leaders, it seems pretty clear to me that these criticisms of the pope being "too welcoming" or "too accommodating" are not rooted in Christ's teachings. But that's just my own interpretation.
I'm sure they do all kinds of fancy exegesis to rationalize their prejudices to themselves, but they aren't fooling anyone outside their echo chamber.
Arguably the conservatives are the ones who changed it. Just because they claim “because tradition” doesn’t actually mean they have a valid or historically accurate understanding of what that...
Arguably the conservatives are the ones who changed it. Just because they claim “because tradition” doesn’t actually mean they have a valid or historically accurate understanding of what that tradition is or how it came to be.
Catholic dogma has been in continual flux for nearly 2,000 years. For instance, the whole reason there's a Nicene Creed is because Christians in the year 325 A.D. already had varying...
Catholic dogma has been in continual flux for nearly 2,000 years. For instance, the whole reason there's a Nicene Creed is because Christians in the year 325 A.D. already had varying interpretations of the Bible and Christian doctrines, so the Emperor Constantine felt a need to get everyone together to agree on one central doctrine.
That was only 300 years after Jesus lived. We've had another 1,700 years since then. The Nicene Creed itself was changed only 60 years after it was declared. And, to take only one example within the Catholic Church, there was the famous banning of the Copernican version of the solar system in the 16th century, only for it to be formally accepted 3 centuries later.
There is no central unchanging Catholic tradition. There never has been. There is only what current Catholics agree to here and now. And, they're having yet another disagreement: "been there, done that".
Bingo! Which is why conservatives’ arguments on these sorts of things always fall flat. Their appeals to tradition are usually just gussied up versions of “because I said so and the alternative...
There is no central unchanging Catholic tradition. There never has been. There is only what current Catholics agree to here and now. And, they're having yet another disagreement: "been there, done that".
Bingo! Which is why conservatives’ arguments on these sorts of things always fall flat. Their appeals to tradition are usually just gussied up versions of “because I said so and the alternative makes me uncomfortable.”
Edit: I said “conservatives,” but I think the more proper term would be “fundementalist.”
I think you may be confusing "uphold" with "profess". As i think you and others have pointed out itt, what constitutes christian faith has varied over time. Also, gay is an abomination only to...
I think you may be confusing "uphold" with "profess". As i think you and others have pointed out itt, what constitutes christian faith has varied over time.
Also, gay is an abomination only to certain christians, not the whole christian faith, as you stated elsewhere.
Similarly the big deal over abortion has only really arisen in the last 100 years or so; i assume primarily because of the sonogram and other modern medicine.
Not really - not that it matters. The Pope has to both profess and uphold the Catholic faith. He not only has to share the Catholic faith's speaking points (profess the faith), he also has to...
I think you may be confusing "uphold" with "profess".
Not really - not that it matters. The Pope has to both profess and uphold the Catholic faith. He not only has to share the Catholic faith's speaking points (profess the faith), he also has to defend it and maintain it (uphold the faith).
Also, gay is an abomination only to certain christians, not the whole christian faith, as you stated elsewhere.
It's stated in a verse in the Bible. For homosexuality not to be an abomination requires human intervention: a human has to say they're going to ignore that verse. And many Christians and many Christian denominations have done exactly that. But the Catholic Church is not one of them. Homosexuality is still an abomination in the Catholic faith - which, after all, is the faith we're talking about when we talk about the Pope!
Similarly the big deal over abortion has only really arisen in the last 100 years or so; i assume primarily because of the sonogram and other modern medicine.
I'm not sure why this is relevant. Abortion is considered murder by Catholics, and is therefore considered a sin by them. Therefore, the Pope, as the upholder of the Catholic faith, should be defending this doctrine against changes, and as someone who professes the Catholic faith, should be saying that abortion is wrong.
Abortion was only criminalized and moralized around the turn of the 20th century. It was evidence of sexual immorality and property crime before that, nobody really cared about the baby. The bible...
Abortion was only criminalized and moralized around the turn of the 20th century. It was evidence of sexual immorality and property crime before that, nobody really cared about the baby. The bible itself doesn't address abortion, and is controversial on the nature of when a mass becomes human; but apparently ancient hebrew law considered induced miscarriages to be worthy only of financial compensation.
Therefore, abortion as murder is a fairly contemporary tenet of any christians' faith.
Profession is not about repeating speaking points, it is about enacting and protecting noble truths and principles. There can be no blackletter rules, nor static pronouncements, which can fulfill a true profession. The pope therefore is the prime professional of Roman Catholic doctrines.
Of course i concede that English bible condemns homosexuality, but i do not concede that such Bibles are the whole or exclusive or inerrant foundation of Christianity. Nor is the pope, the bishops, or the polity or body of the Church.
Isn't "the Catholic Church is the one true faith" a noble truth? Isn't "don't kill people, including unborn babies" a noble principle? It's not just the English Bible... this condemnation is in...
Profession is not about repeating speaking points, it is about enacting and protecting noble truths and principles. There can be no blackletter rules, nor static pronouncements, which can fulfill a true profession. The pope therefore is the prime professional of Roman Catholic doctrines.
Isn't "the Catholic Church is the one true faith" a noble truth? Isn't "don't kill people, including unborn babies" a noble principle?
Of course i concede that English bible condemns homosexuality
It's not just the English Bible... this condemnation is in the original Hebrew version. It's not something that William Tyndale invented when he translated the Bible into English in the 1500s.
i do not concede that such Bibles are the whole or exclusive or inerrant foundation of Christianity. Nor is the pope, the bishops, or the polity or body of the Church.
This is exactly my point when I wrote "For homosexuality not to be an abomination requires human intervention: a human has to say they're going to ignore that verse." You, as a human, are choosing to ignore that verse. You are forming your own personal interpretation of Christianity... just like every other so-called "Christian" in the world.
Neither of those statements is either a noble truth nor a principle. Clasically, there are only five noble principles: Truth, Justice, Wellness, Goodness, and Peace, sometimes also Beauty. I think...
Isn't "the Catholic Church is the one true faith" a noble truth? Isn't "don't kill people, including unborn babies" a noble principle?
Neither of those statements is either a noble truth nor a principle. Clasically, there are only five noble principles: Truth, Justice, Wellness, Goodness, and Peace, sometimes also Beauty. I think most people, even most academics would admit to a few more, but noble principles (and truths) are incontrovertible and uncontroversial.
There is no such thing as a Hebrew Bible, the Bible as we know it was invented by the Catholics in 3xx C.E. There is controversy, even among practicing Jews, as to what the writings that comprise the "Old Testament" say about homosexuality, if anything. And there is controversy about what the Greek and Aramaic versions say about homosexuality, if anything. That said, I'm pretty sure the Council of Nicea, if asked, would condemn at least male homosexuality.
For homosexuality not to be an abomination requires human intervention: a human has to say they're going to ignore that verse
Logically, this statement presupposes that the Bible is Truth (with a capital T) absent what you call "Human intervention." Nevermind the notions that something like the Bible is meaningless without human interaction, I do not agree that any truths about the Bible may be meaningfully presupposed.
Your first sentence that I quote above is certainly correct; the second sentence is unsupported, and perhaps unsupportable. It's important to note that the arch conservative Catholics are...
If he's not proclaiming the true Christian faith as the Catholic Church sees it, then he is a heretic in the Catholic Church's eyes. And, he's not, so he is.
Your first sentence that I quote above is certainly correct; the second sentence is unsupported, and perhaps unsupportable.
It's important to note that the arch conservative Catholics are outnumbered by progressive catholics who feel that what the Pope is saying is a lot closer to their own understandings of Faith. The Pope is not necessarily changing Catholic's version of the Christian Faith, but is acknowledging that Catholic Faith has changed over years (as you yourself agree to later).
Pope Francis, in conjunction with Ahmed el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, wrote and signed 'A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together'. That document says (among other...
the second sentence is unsupported, and perhaps unsupportable.
Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept; [emphasis mine]
The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church decreed that:
This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. [emphasis mine]
Is the Pope not saying something contrary to the Catholic Church's own doctrine? They say they are the one true Church created by God, while he says God willed all religions and wants people to believe different religions.
Sure, the Document on Human Fraternity is nice and diplomatic and encourages getting along with one's fellow humans, but it does contradict the Catholic Church's own position on what is and is not the one true Church.
progressive catholics who feel that what the Pope is saying is a lot closer to their own understandings of Faith.
... but not the Catholic Church's official doctrine. The Catholic people have an understanding of the Catholic faith which is at odds with their own Church. Sounds like fun!
Precluding the Lumen Gentium by about 100 years, we have Papal Infallibility, which dictates that not only is the Pope incapable of being incorrect on this matter, the mere idea of the Pope being...
Precluding the Lumen Gentium by about 100 years, we have Papal Infallibility, which dictates that not only is the Pope incapable of being incorrect on this matter, the mere idea of the Pope being capable of being incorrect is itself heretical.
So... there's heresy here, but it's the guys who say that the Pope is wrong.
I was raised in the ultra-conservative Catholic community. I don't believe most people understand how deadly serious this community is. Their being the "True" followers must be true; their...
I was raised in the ultra-conservative Catholic community. I don't believe most people understand how deadly serious this community is. Their being the "True" followers must be true; their identity is defined around being special. If anyone has questions about it, I am happy to help.
Thereby showing their true overriding dogma, and it has less to do with Christ than it does with politics. This is so embarrassing for everyone involved.
In a time where extremism is killing people all over the world, they want their church to be more extreme.
But they're asking for him to be denounced as a heretic because of the religious positions he has taken:
If he's not proclaiming the true Christian faith as the Catholic Church sees it, then he is a heretic in the Catholic Church's eyes. And, he's not, so he is.
The fact that many of us outside the Catholic Church might like and agree with Pope Francis' ideas is irrelevant. The point is that the Pope is supposed to uphold the Catholic version of the Christian faith, and he's not: he's changing it.
But isn't Catholic dogma also that the Pope is the literal infallible earthly voice of God? By their own rules, he gets the final say when it comes to interpretation of a tricky, allegorical, and much-translated text.
Only up to a point. If a Pope started telling people there is no God and the Catholic Church has got it wrong all these years... I'm pretty sure they'd boot him out, quick-smart. There are limits to the Pope's supposed infallibility.
Also remember that the Church itself created that dogma of papal infallibility: even though it had been assumed for centuries, it was only formalised 150 years ago, by a gathering of Church leaders. If the Church can giveth, the Church can also taketh away...
For those curious about it, here is also some additional information from catholic.com: Papal Infallibility
Definitely a fair point, but one that I figure makes it even more overtly political rather than spiritual. His views are at least as well backed by scripture as theirs (arguably more so, given the emphasis on the whole "love thy neighbor" bit that seems to have been otherwise lost), yet they choose to challenge his authority rather than defer to it. They're claiming the sanctity of the rules on one hand while breaking them with the other.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty much always in favour of challenging authority, but the hypocrisy here frustrates me.
"Love thy neighbour" doesn't extend to "thy neighbour's religious views are just as valid as thine own". It also doesn't extend to "Thou canst adapt thy religious dogma to accommodate thy neighbour's non-doctrinal wishes".
Abortion is murder, and "Thou shalt not kill" is a fairly central rule in the Christian faith. It's one of the Top Ten rules, in fact.
Homosexuality is an abomination in the Christian faith.
The centrality of the Pope in the Catholic faith, as the spiritual successor to Saint Peter, is dogma. Protestant churches which deny that are not on the right side of this theological argument, according to the Catholic Church.
For the Pope, who is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, to be openly contradicting these Catholic doctrines is not a minor matter. In some Catholics' eyes, he's changing their very faith.
EDIT: Typo.
The Pope is only considered infallible when he declares himself to be. When he invokes "Ex Cathedra".
The last (and only) time a sitting Pope invoked "Ex Cathedra" was in 1950, and that was to declare the "Assumption of Mary" to be an article of faith.
The "true Christian faith" has to ultimately be rooted in Christ's teachings though, right? It seems like these people would call Jesus himself a heretic for being "too accommodating".
Yes.
However...
For starters, I deliberately wrote "the true Christian faith as the Catholic Church sees it". There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, all claiming to be the true Christian faith. The Catholic Church is merely one claimant among many to the title, with its own particular spin on Christianity.
For nexts, "Christ's teachings" means different things to different people.
To some, it refers to the entire catalogue of beliefs contained in the Bible (and even the definition of "Bible" can vary). As the common aphorism goes: no matter what opinion you have, you can find something in the Bible to support it. For example, both pro- and anti-slavery campaigners back in the day were able to draw on the Bible to support their contradictory points of view.
There's a verse in one of the gospels where Jesus is quoted as saying "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." This can be taken to mean that Jesus himself includes the writings and teachings now known as the Old Testament in his own teachings.
To some, "Christ's teachings" refers primarily to the writings in the New Testament, written roughly contemporaneously with Jesus' life or after his death - with the Old Testament merely a back-up where it doesn't contradict the New Testament. Because how can the Old Testament be part of Christ's teachings if it was written before he was born?
To some, "Christ's teachings" refers solely to the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the four canonical gospels. In this category, there are even atheist Christians: people who don't believe in God, but follow the teachings of the wise human being called Yeshua, who is also known as Jesus Christ.
So, even rooting a so-called "true Christian faith" in Christ's teachings leaves a lot of wiggle room for people to decide what are and are not considered Christ's teachings.
And that's before we even get to interpreting those teachings. The books of the Bible were written in a variety of languages over hundreds of years, in societies unlike our own. How do we properly translate those words into words of our own language, and how do we properly interpret the meaning of those words for our current times?
There's a lot of scope for variation here, which is why there can be over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, all calling themselves the "true Christian faith".
There certainly is great scope for interpretation on many things, but it would seem to me that "Christ's teachings" should at the very least include the words and actions of Jesus as recorded in the gospels as a major component. Given his words and actions toward outcasts and "others" along with his words and actions towards self-righteous religious leaders, it seems pretty clear to me that these criticisms of the pope being "too welcoming" or "too accommodating" are not rooted in Christ's teachings. But that's just my own interpretation.
I'm sure they do all kinds of fancy exegesis to rationalize their prejudices to themselves, but they aren't fooling anyone outside their echo chamber.
Arguably the conservatives are the ones who changed it. Just because they claim “because tradition” doesn’t actually mean they have a valid or historically accurate understanding of what that tradition is or how it came to be.
Catholic dogma has been in continual flux for nearly 2,000 years. For instance, the whole reason there's a Nicene Creed is because Christians in the year 325 A.D. already had varying interpretations of the Bible and Christian doctrines, so the Emperor Constantine felt a need to get everyone together to agree on one central doctrine.
That was only 300 years after Jesus lived. We've had another 1,700 years since then. The Nicene Creed itself was changed only 60 years after it was declared. And, to take only one example within the Catholic Church, there was the famous banning of the Copernican version of the solar system in the 16th century, only for it to be formally accepted 3 centuries later.
There is no central unchanging Catholic tradition. There never has been. There is only what current Catholics agree to here and now. And, they're having yet another disagreement: "been there, done that".
Bingo! Which is why conservatives’ arguments on these sorts of things always fall flat. Their appeals to tradition are usually just gussied up versions of “because I said so and the alternative makes me uncomfortable.”
Edit: I said “conservatives,” but I think the more proper term would be “fundementalist.”
I think you may be confusing "uphold" with "profess". As i think you and others have pointed out itt, what constitutes christian faith has varied over time.
Also, gay is an abomination only to certain christians, not the whole christian faith, as you stated elsewhere.
Similarly the big deal over abortion has only really arisen in the last 100 years or so; i assume primarily because of the sonogram and other modern medicine.
Not really - not that it matters. The Pope has to both profess and uphold the Catholic faith. He not only has to share the Catholic faith's speaking points (profess the faith), he also has to defend it and maintain it (uphold the faith).
It's stated in a verse in the Bible. For homosexuality not to be an abomination requires human intervention: a human has to say they're going to ignore that verse. And many Christians and many Christian denominations have done exactly that. But the Catholic Church is not one of them. Homosexuality is still an abomination in the Catholic faith - which, after all, is the faith we're talking about when we talk about the Pope!
I'm not sure why this is relevant. Abortion is considered murder by Catholics, and is therefore considered a sin by them. Therefore, the Pope, as the upholder of the Catholic faith, should be defending this doctrine against changes, and as someone who professes the Catholic faith, should be saying that abortion is wrong.
Abortion was only criminalized and moralized around the turn of the 20th century. It was evidence of sexual immorality and property crime before that, nobody really cared about the baby. The bible itself doesn't address abortion, and is controversial on the nature of when a mass becomes human; but apparently ancient hebrew law considered induced miscarriages to be worthy only of financial compensation.
Therefore, abortion as murder is a fairly contemporary tenet of any christians' faith.
Profession is not about repeating speaking points, it is about enacting and protecting noble truths and principles. There can be no blackletter rules, nor static pronouncements, which can fulfill a true profession. The pope therefore is the prime professional of Roman Catholic doctrines.
Of course i concede that English bible condemns homosexuality, but i do not concede that such Bibles are the whole or exclusive or inerrant foundation of Christianity. Nor is the pope, the bishops, or the polity or body of the Church.
Isn't "the Catholic Church is the one true faith" a noble truth? Isn't "don't kill people, including unborn babies" a noble principle?
It's not just the English Bible... this condemnation is in the original Hebrew version. It's not something that William Tyndale invented when he translated the Bible into English in the 1500s.
This is exactly my point when I wrote "For homosexuality not to be an abomination requires human intervention: a human has to say they're going to ignore that verse." You, as a human, are choosing to ignore that verse. You are forming your own personal interpretation of Christianity... just like every other so-called "Christian" in the world.
EDIT: Formatting.
Neither of those statements is either a noble truth nor a principle. Clasically, there are only five noble principles: Truth, Justice, Wellness, Goodness, and Peace, sometimes also Beauty. I think most people, even most academics would admit to a few more, but noble principles (and truths) are incontrovertible and uncontroversial.
There is no such thing as a Hebrew Bible, the Bible as we know it was invented by the Catholics in 3xx C.E. There is controversy, even among practicing Jews, as to what the writings that comprise the "Old Testament" say about homosexuality, if anything. And there is controversy about what the Greek and Aramaic versions say about homosexuality, if anything. That said, I'm pretty sure the Council of Nicea, if asked, would condemn at least male homosexuality.
Logically, this statement presupposes that the Bible is Truth (with a capital T) absent what you call "Human intervention." Nevermind the notions that something like the Bible is meaningless without human interaction, I do not agree that any truths about the Bible may be meaningfully presupposed.
Your first sentence that I quote above is certainly correct; the second sentence is unsupported, and perhaps unsupportable.
It's important to note that the arch conservative Catholics are outnumbered by progressive catholics who feel that what the Pope is saying is a lot closer to their own understandings of Faith. The Pope is not necessarily changing Catholic's version of the Christian Faith, but is acknowledging that Catholic Faith has changed over years (as you yourself agree to later).
Pope Francis, in conjunction with Ahmed el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, wrote and signed 'A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together'. That document says (among other things):
The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church decreed that:
Is the Pope not saying something contrary to the Catholic Church's own doctrine? They say they are the one true Church created by God, while he says God willed all religions and wants people to believe different religions.
Sure, the Document on Human Fraternity is nice and diplomatic and encourages getting along with one's fellow humans, but it does contradict the Catholic Church's own position on what is and is not the one true Church.
... but not the Catholic Church's official doctrine. The Catholic people have an understanding of the Catholic faith which is at odds with their own Church. Sounds like fun!
Precluding the Lumen Gentium by about 100 years, we have Papal Infallibility, which dictates that not only is the Pope incapable of being incorrect on this matter, the mere idea of the Pope being capable of being incorrect is itself heretical.
So... there's heresy here, but it's the guys who say that the Pope is wrong.
Ladies and gentlemen, the history of Christianity in a nutshell.
I was raised in the ultra-conservative Catholic community. I don't believe most people understand how deadly serious this community is. Their being the "True" followers must be true; their identity is defined around being special. If anyone has questions about it, I am happy to help.
Wasn't that a South Park episode?