Pope Talks Of A Woman Pope

[Yirgacheffe]

Yirgacheffe, hi again.

 

Your mentioning of Eastern Europe is now understood in respect to our Polish pope and how his election and long papacy affected, it would seem, the erosion of Soviet political power over his native Poland, and all of the former Warsaw Pact countries.

 

You bolded one of my points. Let me try to explain why I wrote what I did. I had expressed my interest in the papacy as a whole, a unit spanning almost two thousand years. I am speaking of a potent influence that will endure as a lasting heritage for the next two thousand years. The title of this thread is Pope Talks of a Woman Pope. With such ridiculous speculation I can go two directions. 1) I can try to demonstrate that the pope did not mean this, nor say it. 2) I can explain why even if it should be true that a sitting pope would mean and say that a woman can fill his office, why it would be unimportant.

 

I chose the second path and not the first because by doing so I can show why I would have interior peace as a Catholic even while disagreeing with my pope about a particular teaching. It is not impossible for a pope to have heretical beliefs as did John XXII. Of course there is a flurry of interest in the present when a pope voices a belief that cannot be supported by Catholics. This thing about John XXII raised a furor in the 14th Century I am sure. But there it was confined and today nobody even thinks about it even though it was only about 700 years ago. I doubt that he has been doing so, but if Pope Francis is lobbying for a female pope, nobody will remember it by 3014. For those who believe in Pope Joan, its total denial by Catholics only emphasizes how never in the history of the papacy has any pope, not even the alleged Pope Joan, expressed speculation about female priests, female bishops, or female bishops of Rome. If this pope is doing that, he is going against two thousand years of continuous opposition, and he could not win. The singular teachings of any pope will be forgotten in the future (historical irrelevance), and frustrated by papal powerlessness in the present (theological impotence).

 

Many Catholics and almost all non-Catholics have a hyper-inflated view of the authority of any particular pope. This is what needs to be combated with vigor if all people would understand the nuances of papal authority accurately. "Hyper-papalism", if you will, leads to the completely unCatholic view that whatever a present pope may say can set the Church in a new direction. I know what the Catholic Church teaches about the pope. I accept that popes can be infallible on rare occasions as explained at the First Vatican Council. But there have been perhaps only two occasions of this since the dogma was defined in 1870. Most people say there has been but one! The teaching on the Assumption of Mary, infallibly defined in 1950 by Pius XII was in through conformity with the Catholic faith. It was not in the least controversial. Churches had names like "Assumption Chapel". For centuries, the fourth glorious mystery of the Holy Rosary had been the Assumption of Mary. Even so, Pius XII consulted all the bishops of the world prior to his announcement and the bishops were resoundingly in favor of its definition. Pius XII will never be forgotten for affirming a truth that had begun to be attacked by naysayers from outside the Church. Compare that with "Pope Talks of a Woman Pope", and perhaps it will be clearer why I might think that Francis would be powerless to impose such a preposterous idea, even in the unlikely event that he should wish to.

 

I am not speaking for Catholic classmates at public school or the random fellow employee who claims to having been raised Catholic, but doesn't have a clue about the history of the Church. A lot of people who even go to Mass are capable of thinking any crazy idea is okay. Catholics who care and know their faith would never, ever be fooled by the pope if he "...talks of a woman pope". Having cut himself off from Catholic Tradition, such a pope would find that the power of the papacy is non-existent to fabricate theological novelties. Of course, Catholics who know their faith would not be so shaken as to doubt that this could be a true pope. The other problem with having this hyper-inflated view of particular popes, as I alluded to above, is that it can lead to two errors. The first is what has been discussed at this board, from those who believe that a pope can overturn or revolutionize Catholic teaching. The second, but equally grievous error, is that it leads to doubting that a "revolutionary pope" could really be the true pope. But many saints and Catholic theologians have speculated on questions of obedience to popes with non-Catholic ideas. These speculations presuppose the truth upon which I insist. Faithful Catholics and thoughtful non-Catholics should not get overly excited about a pope with questionable teaching. The power of the papacy is preservational and not revolutionary. Revolutionary ideas are doomed to the scrapheap of history, even if proposed by the highest office in the Catholic Church.

 

If I had chosen to prove that Francis did not mean to say that there could be a woman pope, people could still get the impression that it would be a matter of the gravest impact if he really did. They might still think there could be a woman pope. Anyway, for the record, I seriously doubt that Francis is floating the idea of female popes.

I just read the hoax article and am a bit puzzled as to why you thought Francis really was talking about ordaining women and women popes.  A bit of unrequested advice, don't worry so much about how everyone and his brother is going to interpret Francis' words.  No matter how long and detailed the explanation of the popes role or even explanations of intent made personally by the pope people will see and hear what they want.  But then maybe I'm a bit raw after dropping my kids and their friends off at a skating party and hearing "your not going to wear that are you mom?"  from DD before we left

[Ran]

Regarding the blog:

Disclaimer—Diversity Chronicle

[3DOP]

I just read the hoax article and am a bit puzzled as to why you thought Francis really was talking about ordaining women and women popes.  A bit of unrequested advice, don't worry so much about how everyone and his brother is going to interpret Francis' words.  No matter how long and detailed the explanation of the popes role or even explanations of intent made personally by the pope people will see and hear what they want.  But then maybe I'm a bit raw after dropping my kids and their friends off at a skating party and hearing "your not going to wear that are you mom?"  from DD before we left

 

Yirgacheffe, hey.

 

So where do you get the idea that I "thought Pope Francis really was talking about ordaining women and. women popes"? I made at least two clear statements that were intended to remove any speculation along those lines.

 

I appreciate your concern that I am worrying too much though. I'll try to heed your advice. You are undoubtedly correct about how people will "see and hear what they want". Nevertheless, I am persuaded that some here at MD&DB are interested to hear what the Catholic Church really teaches about the papacy. My expectations seem rather modest to me. I only really expect a few to care. I write for lurkers I don't know, and for a handful that I do know here. I flatter myself that I have done something toward clarifying the Catholic faith to a few LDS over the years. In any event, I truly don't think I am stressed out about it. I grant that it must appear to be the case, and I will endeavor to present a calmer disposition in the future if possible.  

 

But here are the two comments that I think are evidence that I maintained objectivity and doubt about the speculations of the person who named the thread.

 

1) "I doubt that he has been doing so, but if Pope Francis is lobbying for a female pope, nobody will remember it by 3014."

2) "Anyway, for the record, I seriously doubt that Francis is floating the idea of female popes."

Edited January 5, 2014 by 3DOP

[Bernard Gui]

"Can the Catholics chime in on what is going on?"

 

I can only speculate and I don't seem to pay as much attention to him as you do anyway, stone holm. My attention has never really been riveted on any current pope of my lifetime.

 

Never before now has every off-hand comment of a pope been so widely reported. Every morning you come to expect something new and shocking. It does seem like this pope is indifferent to the fact that his private opinions are making it appear to people who don't understand the limits of papal authority, that he can single-handedly deliver the Catholic Church over to ways that conflict with Catholic Tradition. As I have tried to explain before, any current pope, whoever and whenever it might be, has the obligation to hand on what he has received. Some have done so less successfully than others. Because of the cumulative authority of all of the popes, I am much more interested in the papacy as a whole than I could be of any single pope, whether dead or alive, who is alleged to be singular. To be singular is to be historically irrelevant and theologically impotent. I have a few favorite popes throughout history. But they are favorites because in some special way, they restored something that seemed to be slipping away from what Catholic Tradition had continuously practised or taught.

 

I pray with complete faith that the early expectations many people have of this pope will be a disappointment to them whose false hopes are that he can revolutionize the Catholic Church. Indeed, I have good reasons to hope that Pope Francis may become a "favorite".  

 

Sincerely,

 

3DOP

Thank you. This is reassuring. I think some have perceived what they think is a chink in the armor and are hoping it will widen into a broader progressive gap. I believe the targets are abortion, same-sex marriage, and ordination of women. Anything he says on those subjects is pounced upon and turned to support their agenda. I don't recall a pope in my lifetime who has achieved such notoriety in such a short tenure. They will eventually turn on him if he doesn't deliver the goods they are expecting. Do you remember Pope Pius who almost died from the hiccups?

[3DOP]

Thank you. This is reassuring. I think some have perceived what they think is a chink in the armor and are hoping it will widen into a broader progressive gap. I believe the targets are abortion, same-sex marriage, and ordination of women. Anything he says on those subjects is pounced upon and turned to support their agenda. I don't recall a pope in my lifetime who has achieved such notoriety in such a short tenure. They will eventually turn on him if he doesn't deliver the goods they are expecting. Do you remember Pope Pius who almost died from the hiccups?

 

 

Hi Bernard Gui. Time will tell, but I agree with you Bernard. 

 

I don't remember any pope of any name who was ever associated with one single hiccup! If I had to guess on the "hiccups pope" I'd go for Pius XI who died in 1939. Pius XI was known for instituting the Feast of Christ the King, affirming that governments had the obligation to observe Christian morality, that Catholics could not support so-called "ecumenical" services, and attacked the new principles which were leading all the non-Catholic Christians to adopt artificial birth control.

 

The other three with which I am familiar were also from the modern era, and were very active popes. We really had a steady stream of stalwart figures standing firmly against worldly trends that were threatening the Church from Gregory XVI to Pius XII, covering a period of about 125 years. It seems no coincidence that they are despised by non-Catholics and put aside by many Catholics today as though their authority ended with their deaths. That is what I try to make people understand. Nobody seems to believe me. But unless you can demonstrate that their teachings were contrary to Catholic Tradition, their words carry as much force today as they did when they were alive.

 

Many dead popes will always trump a living pope if they disagree.       

Edited January 5, 2014 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

Air transportation has revolutionized travel (changing). Does it follow that the principles of flight are therefore revolutionary (changing)?  I would suggest that if the principles of flight were undependable because they changed, it would never revolutionize anything because people wouldn't be willing to fly that way.

 

I am not against "revolutionizing the world one person at a time". But the only thing in common with that way of describing conversion to the Gospel, and my pointing out that "revolutionary doctrine and practices" are doomed to failure in the Catholic Church is the word "revolution".

 

To believe that the Gospel revolutionizes (changes) a soul both interiorly and outwardly has nothing to do with whether the Gospel itself should also be revolutionary (changing). I would suggest that where the person denies immutable truths connected to his religion, whether Christian or not, the less likely it is that his religion will exercise a revolutionary change in that soul.

 

3DOP

 

The principles of powered heavier than air flight have been known far longer than the Wright brothers. But I still marvel when I see a 747 take off.

 

Revolutionary doesn't mean undependable. Whether it is the revolution in air travel, the electronic revolution, or the revolution in medical science that we in our modern society heavily depend upon.

 

Christ really was a revolutionary.Though I seriously doubt he had armed revolution against the Roman army in mind. He took the tired old "Do unto others as they do unto you" and really revolutionized it to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; From the tired old "They brought it upon themselves" to "The Good Samaritan". From the woman taken in adultery to go thy way and sin no more; From shunning the poor, the sick, and the abused to ministering to their needs. Issues we still struggle with to this day.