Difficult Days for Rome’s Apologists

[JM]

Dr. White makes some great points worth listening to but I would encourage you to read the entire article link here.

What About The Protestant Catholics? | The American Conservative

Essentially, if traditional Catholics remain traditional against the unorthodox Pope Francis, they could be in schism. If they join in the liberalism we find in modern Catholicism and promoted by the Pope, they would be in schism with their past. Modern Catholics by becoming liberal would effectually end their ties with historic Catholicism.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Basil the Great]

It is sad that so many of our Catholic friends on the Catholic sub-forum are struggling with the current state of affairs under Pope Francis. I do understand their position, especially those who consider themselves Traditionalists. I personally like Pope Francis, mostly because he changed the teaching on capital punishment.

 

[dzheremi]

This did not start with the current troubles of Pope Francis. Roman Catholicism itself is at odds with its own past. For instance, see the Keenan Catechism (written 1840s, copyright 1876, published 1899), which denies Papal infallibility in the following passage:

Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.

---

Of course Papal infallibility would not be declared as dogma until Vatican I in 1869-70, some ~30 years after Fr. Keenan wrote his catechism. So he and all who believed as he taught (with imprimatur and everything) would be 'bad'/schismatic relative to today's RCC.

 

[Basil the Great]

This did not start with the current troubles of Pope Francis. Roman Catholicism itself is at odds with its own past. For instance, see the Keenan Catechism (written 1840s, copyright 1876, published 1899), which denies Papal infallibility in the following passage:

Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.

---

Of course Papal infallibility would not be declared as dogma until Vatican I in 1869-70, some ~30 years after Fr. Keenan wrote his catechism. So he and all who believed as he taught (with imprimatur and everything) would be 'bad'/schismatic relative to today's RCC.

Most interesting post and I was not aware of your information. The initial vote on the draft Vatican I document had 88 voting against, but when the final vote was taken, only two Bishops voted "no".

 

[JM]

Hey folks, keep in mind this is a Calvin/Reformed forum.

 

[JM]

This did not start with the current troubles of Pope Francis. Roman Catholicism itself is at odds with its own past. For instance, see the Keenan Catechism (written 1840s, copyright 1876, published 1899), which denies Papal infallibility in the following passage:

Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.

---

Of course Papal infallibility would not be declared as dogma until Vatican I in 1869-70, some ~30 years after Fr. Keenan wrote his catechism. So he and all who believed as he taught (with imprimatur and everything) would be 'bad'/schismatic relative to today's RCC.

It is possible that Fr. Keenan was in error but that is how traditional forms of Christianity work, isn't it? The Controversy Over Icons is one of the most striking examples of the Church moving from orthodoxy to State Orthodoxy.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[chevyontheriver]

Dr. White makes some great points worth listening to but I would encourage you to read the entire article link here.

What About The Protestant Catholics? | The American Conservative

Essentially, if traditional Catholics remain traditional against the unorthodox Pope Francis, they could be in schism. If they join in the liberalism we find in modern Catholicism and promoted by the Pope, they would be in schism with their past. Modern Catholics by becoming liberal would effectually end their ties with historic Catholicism.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Sorry. Wrong forum. Deleted.

 

[zippy2006]

Dr. White makes some great points worth listening to but I would encourage you to read the entire article link here.

What About The Protestant Catholics? | The American Conservative

Essentially, if traditional Catholics remain traditional against the unorthodox Pope Francis, they could be in schism. If they join in the liberalism we find in modern Catholicism and promoted by the Pope, they would be in schism with their past. Modern Catholics by becoming liberal would effectually end their ties with historic Catholicism.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Good articles from Dreher, Douthat, and the excerpt from Meador. Well, except for Meador's use of the word "Franciscan":

Thus we come to the fault line that has opened up under the Franciscan papacy...

...That's maybe not the right word.

To be sure, the limelight will shine brightly on the next conclave.