Qui Locutus - Formerly The CathApol Blog - a Catholic Apologetics Blog Defending the Faith and keeping Catholics Catholic! Scott Windsor, MEd. - aka: CathApol
Pope Francis has gifted two shards from the True Cross to HRH King Charles III which have been incorporated into the Cross of Wales, which will be part of the procession at the coronation of King Charles. An interesting act of ecumenism for a pope to gift something to the monarch of England (whom has been the self-proclaimed "Head of the Church of England" since King Henry VIII).
 |
| The Cross of Wales |
Source:
One of my sons asked me this question and I said I would get back to him on it. I remember hearing about this, vaguely, in the past. This is what I found...
So, regarding what Pope Francis said about the Lord's Prayer (the Our Father)... that was back in 2019, and he proposed the change, it never really happened.
Per Fox News:
The Pope (proposed to) change the phrase "lead us not into temptation" to "do not let us fall into temptation," as mentioned in the gospel of Matthew 6:13, because the original translation implies that God induces temptation. The change, officials said, is closer to the original intent of the prayer.
"I am the one who falls; it’s not Him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen," Francis explained to Italian broadcasters about the phrase change. "A father doesn't do that, a father helps you to get up immediately. It's Satan who leads us into temptation, that's his department."
Published June 5, 2019 (the statement was actually made in May sometime).
I'm not overly concerned with the proposed change if were ever to be put in place. The Greek, written out literally, is not what we're used to seeing.
ἀφίεμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν καί μή εἰσενέγκης ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλά ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπό το ῦ π o νηρο ῦ .
Here's that translated by Translate.com:
Thou shalt forsake us and thou shalt not be tempted by us,
[that's the "Lead us not into temptation" part]
but thou art us out of wretchedness.
[that's the ""but deliver us from evil" part]
Google Translate translates it this way:
"lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." (same as we're used to)
Same copy/paste in a different translator. Funny how the first one (Translate.com) translated it into "King James English" with the "thou shalt..." and "thou art us..." Why use old English?
The "DeepL" translation site goes with:
"and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
translate.yandex.com, using the exact same Greek copy/paste:
"let us not be tempted by temptation, but let us be tempted by temptation."
Bing translation is the same as Translate.com.
Anyway, it has not changed since he said that nearly 4 years ago, that I am aware of. Could it be changed? Sure! Jesus didn't speak English and clearly, there are variances in the translation just based on the few I looked into. The way you're used to hearing it has been used for close to 500 years, so any change "to Jesus' words" (again, He didn't speak English!) will be met with a lot of resistance.
I hope this helps!
That said, other agencies are saying the resignation of Pope Francis "seems unlikely." Another says, "no one expects the Pope to die or resign anytime soon." Or, "resignation rumors are 'cheap soap opera'," The Boston Pilot says.
Now, the fact that Pope Francis is most often seen in wheelchair can be explained by the fact that he is experiencing severe knee pain, unlike when Pope John Paul II succumbed to a wheelchair as Parkinson's took more and more of a role.
For now - and again - this observer will continue with the "wait-and-see" approach.
Pope Francis, on July 16, 2021, issued Moto Proprio traditionis custodes, (Custodian of Tradition) and in it he abrogates "previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Moto Proprio." So, does that mean that the extraordinary rite is abrogated? No, it does not! The current Moto Proprio allows for the extraordinary rite BUT - newly ordained priests who have been ordained after this date should (not must) submit a request to the local ordinary (diocesan bishop) who shall consult the Apostolic See (the Pope) before granting this authorization (Art. 4). Priests who already celebrate according to the 1962 missal again "should" (not must) "request from the diocesan bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty."
In reality, not much. One of the things SSPX feared was precisely what Pope Francis has just done and thus "normalization" has not yet happened. Pope Francis is, most certainly, attempting to dissuade and end "the Mass for all time" as it was called by Pope Pius V, under whom the so-called Tridentine Rite was codified. That Mass which was codified under Pope Pius V had existed since the time of the Apostles, but some variants had worked their way in through the centuries and Modernism was having its effect on the Mass - so it was codified in such a way that novel additions or changes would be prohibited. Back to the question, since SSPX has been celebrating the "extraordinary rite" since the society was canonically founded back in November of 1970 when the decree of erection of the Society was approved by Bishop Charriere of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg. Though this was a six year experiment, it was never abrogated and as testified by recent talks between Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, their organization is recognized - but their status remains "irregular."
Well, maybe nothing - maybe everything? FSSP is at the mercy of the local ordinary (diocesan bishop) and thus if said bishop decides they need to cease practicing in their diocese, FSSP is obliged to do so. To the possible advantage of FSSP, they would not enter a diocese without the bishop's explicit permission so where ever they exist, they do so under the blessing of that local bishop - unless he has a change of heart.
Only time will tell as to how much effect this latest Moto Proprio will have on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.
 |
| Photo credit: Vatican News |
He has stated that he would. He has already picked a retirement house in Buenos Aires for where he would like to live and plans to work as a priest. He said this is what he was planning on doing before he became pope and wishes to return to that plan as pope emeritus (Akin, 2014). Some speculate this could be as early as after Christmas of 2020 (FR News, 2020). An article from Keep the Faith in February 2020, states that there is "no doubt he will resign in 2020" (Hoare, 2020). Another, who cites a comment from Pope Francis, more clearly states - "the question is not if Francis will resign, but more likely when will he actually do so" (Mickens, 2019).
The bottom line is, Pope Francis has not definitively declared he will resign after Christmas, 2020. What we have here is speculation from news agencies and others who are basing their speculation on implied statements that Pope Francis has made. Could it be after Christmas and still within 2020? Well, as of the writing of this article, we have a little over a week to find out! Based upon what is out there, it is the opinion of this writer that he likely will follow in the footsteps of Pope Benedict XVI. Whether that will happen in 2020, or at some future date, this writer cannot and will not say.
References
Akin, J. (2014). Pope Francis announces he may renounce the papacy one day: 6 things to know and share [blog]. National Catholic Register. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-francis-announces-he-may-renounce-the-papacy-one-day-6-things-to-know-and-share
FR24 News (2020). Pope: "Without a doubt" the Pope will resign after Christmas when Francis has pledged to "follow Benedict". FR24 News. https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/12/pope-without-a-doubt-the-pope-will-resign-after-christmas-when-francis-has-pledged-to-follow-benedict-world-new.html
Hoare, C. (2020). Pope Francis: 'No doubt will resign in 2020' claim revealed amid slap video row. Keep the Faith. https://www.keepthefaith.co.uk/2020/01/18/pope-francis-no-doubt-he-will-resign-in-2020-claim-revealed-amid-slap-video-row/
Mickens, R. (2019). The resignation of Pope Francis. LaCroix International. https://international.la-croix.com/news/letter-from-rome/the-resignation-of-pope-francis/9416
If by capitalism is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a business economy, market economy or simply free economy. But if by capitalism is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative (Centesimus Annus, No. 42).Bp. Barron writes:
In light of these clarifications, we can hear the Pope’s words with greater understanding. He asks, “Do we realize that that system has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature?” He is not speaking here of the market as such, but of a deeply immoral attitude that has seized the hearts of too many who use the market. And he complains, “An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women.”So, the important factor here is to get the persons who are debating Capitalism to define their terms. Certainly PARTS of Capitalism and especially a Capitalism unfettered by morals and restricted by laws to protect labor is condemned by the Catholic Church. The fact is that Catholicism has been involved in basically all forms of economy from dictators to socialists to feudalists and capitalists. While each kind can and does have its criticisms, none all are all bad! When it comes to Michael Moore - he clearly takes people out of context to exploit them and further his atheistic-socialist agenda. Why was he in Rome to see the Pope anyway?
These are strong words indeed, but we notice again that the Pope’s attention is not so much on the mechanisms of capitalism, but rather on the wickedness of those who are using the market economy in the wrong way, greedily making an idol of money and becoming indifferent to the needs of others. In his call for an ethical circumscription of economic life, Francis’s language is, if anything, milder than Leo XIII’s (“once the demands of necessity and propriety have been met, the rest that one owns belongs to the poor”) or St. Ambrose’s (“if a man has two shirts in his closet, one belongs to him; the other belongs to the man who has no shirt”).
Therefore, we should attend to Pope Francis’s prophetic speech and allow it to bother us. But we should always situate it in the context of the rich and variegated tradition of Catholic social teaching.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2015/07/14/francis-capitalism-and-catholic-social-teaching/
 |
| 2015 Pope Francis embracing Cardinal McCarrick |
 |
| (Picture from ABC: http://abcmundial.com/en/2018/03/31/world/society/vatican-pope-did-not-say-there-is-no-hell) |
“Convert! There is still time, so that you don’t end up in hell. That is what awaits you if you continue on this path. You had a father and a mother: think of them. Cry a little and convert.”Also quoted in Aleteia from his 2016 Lenten message:
“The danger always remains that by a constant refusal to open the doors of their hearts to Christ who knocks on them in the poor, the proud, rich and powerful will end up condemning themselves and plunging into the eternal abyss of solitude which is hell.”It must be made clear too... Pope Francis, even in a Lenten message, is not defining a Catholic teaching - he's speaking his theological opinion. The point is, Pope Francis does believe there is a Hell and has stated so.
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
"Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote,
"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language" (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).Eusebius himself declared that
"Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).The bottom line here, while the existence of an Aramaic original for the Book of Matthew is quite likely, the oldest extant versions of Matthew we have are in Greek. Speculation on what an Aramaic original might say is purely that - speculation. According to the Greek, the more literal translation, where St. Jerome translated the Latin "Pater Noster" and the word in Latin is “inducere,” which means “bring in.” It is from here that we get the English translation we're most familiar with:
Matthew 6:9-13Douay-Rheims 9 Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.11 Give us this day our (daily) bread.12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. (BibleGateway, n.d.)
"But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another; it is a double life, a double life. A totally double life: "I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this association and that one; but my life is not Christian, I don't pay my workers a just wage, I exploit people, I am dirty in my business, I launder money...' A double life. And so many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others.So, while he does not disagree with the sentiment, he didn't say those words as from himself - but that is what others think and/or say when they see hypocritical / fake Catholics. He is also saying that those hypocritical Catholics are causing scandal. So while not saying those words himself - he is highly critical of those who profess the Catholic Faith but don't LIVE the Catholic Faith.
"How many times have we heard - all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere - 'but to be a Catholic like that, it's better to be an atheist.' It is that, scandal. You destroy. You beat down. And this happens every day, it's enough to see the news on TV, or to read the papers. In the papers there are so many scandals, and there is also the great publicity of the scandals. And with the scandals, there is destruction." (Vatican Radio, qtd on churchpop.com)
[Interviewer:] The simplicity of children makes me also think of adults, with a rite that is direct, participated intensely [translator's note: reference to notion of 'actuosa participatio'], of parish masses experienced with so much piety. What comes to mind are proposals that encourage priests to turn their backs to the faithful, to rethink Vatican II, to use Latin. I ask the Pope what he thinks of this. The Pope answers:
[Pope:] "Pope Benedict accomplished a just and magnanimous gesture [translator's note: the motu proprio 'Summorum Pontificum'] to reach out to a certain mindset of some groups and persons who felt nostalgia and were distancing themselves. But it is an exception. That is why one speaks of an 'extraordinary' rite. The ordinary in the Church is not this. It is necessary to approach with magnanimity those attached to a certain form of prayer. But the ordinary is not this. Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium must go on as they are. To speak of a 'reform of the reform' is an error."[Scott:] While I understand why the term "extraordinary" is used, I actually like it! The fact is, the Mass celebrated in the traditional form, in Latin and ad orientum (facing liturgical east) is, historically speaking, the ordinary way of celebrating the Mass. The Novus Ordo Missae, (New Order of the Mass) has been with us for less than 50 years in our nearly 2000 year history! Still, I appreciate the label of "extraordinary" - for there is nothing "ordinary" in ANY validly celebrated Mass! In the Mass our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ manifests Himself, physically, in the form of bread and wine. THIS is "the mystery of faith" (mysterium fidei) of which we speak of in the Mass.
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.[Scott:] So, the use of the Latin language is not only recommended, it is DEMANDED by Vatican II. The complete obliteration of Latin, as was "ordinary" after 1969, is CONTRARY to "the spirit of Vatican II." Thankfully, many parishes are putting Latin BACK into the Mass. It should also be noted at this time that nowhere does Vatican II abrogate the use of the Traditional Latin Mass, nor has the Church since then officially abrogated the Traditional Latin Mass, and this fact recent popes have acknowledged and are allowing for and even encouraging freer exercise of the "Extraordinary Rite."
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
[Interviewer:] "Other than those who are sincere and ask for this possibility out of habit or devotion, can this desire express something else? Are there dangers?"
[Pope:] "I ask myself about this. For example, I always try to understand what is behind those individuals who are too young to have lived the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who want it nonetheless. I have at times found myself in front of people who are too rigid, an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: how come so much rigidity? You dig, you dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, at times perhaps something else... [sic] The rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid."[Scott:] Rigidity, with all due respect, does not "always hide something!" I would also state that true love IS rigid! It is contrary to true love to allow too much free-play with our traditions. As a parent of six (now grown) children, and the eldest of six siblings as well, the more "rigid" the upbringing, the closer to God these children are. The freer you are with them, the less likely they are to follow our Christian roots and practices. Rigid doesn't equate to being mean or overbearing, it means "holding fast to the traditions we were taught." (2 Thes. 2:15).
When May a Catholic Disagree with Pope Francis?
Posted on 11 November 2014 by Ron Conte
One thing that Catholics are not allowed to disagree on is the Pope. The pope is elected by the College of Cardinals through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The process has been formalized and streamlined over the centuries but the ceremony does not take away the work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, Catholics are not allowed to disagree with the Holy Spirit. As Mr. Conte said, the Catholic who does not recognize the current, validly elected pope is in schism (no longer a Catholic). Unfortunately, there are many of them out there now--claiming to be Catholic but claim there is no valid pope. They are wrong and no longer Catholic.Pope Francis is a valid Pope. He is currently the only Roman Pontiff of the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI validly resigned, and so he is no longer the Pope; that is why he is called “Pope emeritus”. Any Catholic who rejects Pope Francis as the valid and sole current Pope of the one true Church is in a state of formal schism, is automatically excommunicated, and may not receive any of the Sacraments (except Confession, once he is repentant). If you reject the Pope, you have separated yourself from formal communion with the Catholic Church.
So here Mr. Conte wants to make it clear that not all of what the pope says is binding on all Catholics. Not everything he says is infallible. In other words, we are allowed to use our own brain. The following are conditions under which we may disagree.For Catholics who accept Pope Francis as the valid Roman Pontiff, some disagreement is possible without heresy, schism, or other grave sin.
1. Personal Opinion
When Pope Francis expresses his personal opinion on a matter of faith or morals (or any other topic), and given that the Magisterium has no definitive teaching on the subject, the faithful Catholic is free to disagree.
Pope Benedict XVI wrote and published a book entitled, Jesus of Nazareth: from the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. In the preface of that book, he writes:
“It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search ‘for the face of the Lord’ (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.” [1]
Here Pope Benedict XVI gives us a good example to follow concerning the expression of theological opinions by the Bishops and the Pope. Such expressions, no matter how emphatically they may be phrased, are not an exercise of the Magisterium, and so are not binding on the faithful. All are free to disagree with the Pope in any personal opinion that he expresses: about Jesus, about matters of faith and morals, and certainly on other matters.
The pope's personal opinions, personal devotions, prayers, etc. are his own. Of course, I'd think that his opinion pulls much more weight than mine. Pope St. John Paul II's opinion on the death penalty made me look at it differently, and I eventually changed my opinions in line with his. Eventually, he included his teaching on the subject in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life) in 1995. This encyclical lends even more weight to his teaching. See below under prudential judgment.Caveat: In all likelihood, the opinion of the Pope on any matter pertaining to faith or morals is better than your opinion. The mere opinion of the Pope is fallible, but so are all your opinions.
2. Prudential Judgment
When Pope Francis issues a judgment of the prudential order, under his authority as Pope, but as a judgment not a teaching, the faithful Catholic is free to disagree.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” [2]
The changes in the Mass since Vatican II have been the basis of much disgruntlement among "radical traditionalists" sometimes called "rad-trads". These people refuse to go to Mass when the novus ordo (new order) Mass is said. They seek out traditional Latin Mass for the most part. The Latin Mass, per se is certainly not a bad thing, but neither is the Novus ordo. Since the radical changes to the new Mass in the 70's, the American Bishops have been working on tweaking the Mass, making it closer to the Latin Mass. The updates have been good. The point is that no practicing Catholic is allowed to forego Mass because there is not a Mass nearby that they believe is the right one. Even if you believe that everyone should attend a Latin Mass, you cannot skip Mass while on vacation just because you can't find a Latin Mass.Caveat: An official decision of the Pope under his temporal authority (the type of Church authority that exercises prudential judgment) may still be binding on you as a Catholic. So, for example, if the Pope changes the form of the Mass, you are free to think that the changes are imprudent, but you are not free to reject the Mass on that basis. Or if the Pope changes the rules for reception of Communion, you are free to argue that the changes are imprudent, but you are not free to reject the Mass or the Pope on that basis.
3. Non-infallible Teachings
Each and every teaching of the Magisterium falls into one of two categories: infallible or non-infallible. It is a common misunderstanding to think that all teachings of the Magisterium are entirely without error.
Pope John Paul II: “With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will.” [3]
The non-infallible teachings are reliable and have only a limited possibility of error, but they are NOT infallible. The errors possible in non-infallible teachings never reach to the extent of leading the faithful away from the path of salvation. But non-infallible teachings are non-irreformable. They are subject to a limited possibility of correction, improvement, and change.
Here we see a very specific statement on when we have freedom of thought! from Pope St. John Paul II. "There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and thought and also general noms of licit dissent." There is no doubt we are allowed to think for ourselves.“There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent.” [4]
Non-infallible teachings are subject to a limited possibility of error and reform; therefore, they do not require the full assent of faith, but a lesser type of assent called the “religious submission of mind and will” [5]. What this means is that you are generally required to believe the non-infallible teachings of the Church. But there is some room for faithful dissent, called “licit theological dissent” [4]. To whatever extent a teaching might err, the faithful are free to disagree. God who is Truth never requires assent to false or erroneous ideas.
The non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium are full of truth. The number, type, and extent of the possible errors is quite limited.
An example of an error in a non-infallible teaching is found in the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the definition of lying, which erroneously stated that an assertion is only a lie if the person (to whom you are speaking) has a right to the truth. That claim was removed from the second edition.
Pay attention to this caveat. Well stated Mr. Conte.Caveat: The basis for the disagreement must be Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, or teachings of the Magisterium of greater authority. Most Catholics who reject a non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium have no legitimate basis for that rejection.
4. Infallible Teachings
The infallible teachings are free from all possibility of error due to the work of the Holy Spirit. The infallible teachings require your full assent with the virtue of faith; obstinate disagreement is the grave sin of heresy.
The infallible Magisterium is exercised in any of three ways:
a. Papal Infallibility
b. Conciliar Infallibility
c. the ordinary and universal Magisterium
To reject an infallible teaching of the Magisterium is material heresy. To do so knowingly and deliberately is the grave sin of formal heresy, which includes the penalty of automatic excommunication. If Pope Francis or any other valid Pope teaches something under any type of infallibility, you are required to give that teaching the full assent of faith. Otherwise, you commit heresy and formally separate yourself from the one true Church.
Caveat: Do not be fooled by those blind guides who claim that the Pope can commit heresy himself, and thereby lose his authority. Doctor of the Church Saint Robert Bellarmine held it to be “probable” that the Pope could never commit heresy personally, nor teach heresy in any way. He also held it to be “certain” that the Pope could never define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church.
If all of this is true of the pope, so much more so does it apply to priests, bishops, archbishops, and Cardinals. We are free to disagree on opinion.The foolish today claim that IF a Pope teaches heresy in a way that would seem to fall under infallibility, the teaching is nullified because the Pope fell into heresy. To the contrary, Saint Bellarmine believed that a Pope could NEVER teach heresy in a way that would seem to fall under infallibility.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr. Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.
Endnotes:
[1] Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p. xxiv.
[2] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles (sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, D.C., and made public in July, 2004), n. 3; http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
[3] Address of Pope John Paul II to the Bishops from the United States on their ‘Ad Limina’ visit, 15 October 1988, n. 5.
[4] National Conference of Catholic Bishops (predecessor to the USCCB), Human Life in Our Day, “Norms of Licit Theological Dissent” n. 49 to 54; http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/68-11-15humanlifeinourdaynccb.htm
[5] Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, n. 25.
The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...
