Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jenny duBay's avatar

I don't agree with your opinion in this article -- unless I'm not understanding it correctly, which I think may be the case. Can you please help clarify? I would like to understand. Here are my concerns.

You seem to be stating that we have to agree with the pope and bishops about everything, even their obvious errors that go against Church Tradition, doctrine, and teachings. For example, do you mean we have to agree with everything the German bishops have been saying lately, because they are bishops? We have to agree with Francis that it's great to put Pachamama idols in our churches? We have to agree with the recent statements put out by the Vatican's social media pages on the "Synod on Synodality," in which they promote female priests and the LBGTQA+ community? We are supposed to applaud the Facebook image put up by synod.va page showing a crowd gathered outside a Catholic Church, with a female priest in the center, next to a woman in a Pride t-shirt? Or the ones they just put on Twitter, also promoting the LBGTQA+ community, among other secular things? We're supposed to agree with the Church conforming to the world as it seems to be doing, just because the Vatican and bishops say so, even though that teaching is not ex cathedra and we've been taught previously that "the Church is essentially unchangeable in her teaching, her constitution, and her liturgy" (Fr. Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary)?

I am truly trying to understand what you're saying in this article. Since many of the things Pope Francis says (and does) is the opposite of all other previous popes, which pope are we to believe? Are we to simply go along with whoever is in the chair at any given time? Or are we to believe the true Tradition of our Catholic faith as it's been passed down to us?

I appreciate your response so I can understand the meaning of this article.

Expand full comment
Judson Carroll's avatar

Well done!

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts