Patrick, not everything the Pope says is infallible teaching.  In addition, today, reporters throng around the Pope, and “everybody and their brother” is reporting on what the Pope says and does every moment! Who knows what’s what anymore!.... To my knowledge, Pope Francis has written only one encyclical—formal teaching, but even that, strictly speaking, is NOT infallible—except where he quotes/references “infallible” teaching. (See CCC #891—892)  (Note: The teaching of an Ecumenical Council—“when the magisterium proposes a doctrine ‘for belief as being divinely revealed,’ and as the teaching of Christ” is also infallible.  The above being said, I would recommend reading at least the “Catechism of the Catholic Church:” #889 to 892, inclusive.  The best thing we can do for Pope Francis is pray for him—and trust in the Lord to keep “His Church,” as He promised: “until the end of time.” (Matt 28:20)

I don’t want to judge or condemn anyone especially the pope. But I will admit I’m concerned about his appointments like Galantino and Baldesari to name a few. These men scare me! and I wish pope Francis would speak out already about gay marriage being sinful!

I wish Roman Catholics would quit using the Vat2 term “homily”. I know homily comes from homiletics which is the art of preaching. Jesus did not give the homily on the mount.  He gave the sermon on the mount.

Usually, I attend Mass celebrated according to the Novus Ordo.  Thankfully, our current pastor is pretty much faithful in following the “official” Rubrics of the Novus Ordo at the Altar.  Our “organist,” on the other hand, prefers “pounding” on the piano and running “trills” throughout the Gloria, etc.. (Once-in-awhile, she plays the organ our parish bought just a couple years before she came.)  There are also many hugs, along with hand-shakes at the Sign of Peace and the congregation has formed a habit of freely talking out loud in Church—most especially at the end of Mass—even though the Blessed Sacrament is present in the Tabernacle in the Sanctuary.  (And all the while, God tells us: “My house shall be called a ‘house of prayer’ for all people.” Is 56:7) I know the Mass is the Mass as long as the priest prays the essentials, and, the situation could be much worse in my parish…, but once a month, or so, I attend Sunday Mass at our Cathedral where my entire being (“spirit, soul and body”) is restored via the Tridentine Mass offered in Latin in the early afternoon. Thankfully, Pope Benedict said that the Tridentine Mass has “never been abrogated;” he also said that the two forms (of celebrating the Mass) are mutually enriching.  (See: “Summorum Pontificum”)  Thankfully, our Bishop has provided for the weekly celebration of the Tridentine Mass in our diocese.

HOWARD & HILLARY unfortunately simply stir the pot and create uncertainty in their comments for those who might lack a sense of certainty with respect to their Faith…. That is why Faith Formation is so important. Please re-read Todd’s point of 27 May…. And fuse that with the MAGNANAMOUS efforts our Holy Father presents.  When listening to what he is saying focus on his position with respect to the sinner who he embraces with a loving tone and embrace…. BUT, he is not accepting the sinner’s actions…. I seriously hope that when we enter into a confessional our immediate plea reflects our thinking, “Forgive me Father,
‘Be Merciful for I am a sinner.”
I cannot understand how so many within the Catholic Church, most especially too many of the American Church’s leadership are second guessing the Seat of St. Peter and what Francis is trying to teach. The
comments made by Bishop Tobin this past week are in fact seriously detrimental to the Church, casting a shadow over the message our Holy Father wishes to express….
Brothers and Sister, I am asking you to listen attentively to what our Holy Father is saying and think attentively before responding from a position of ignorance. Remember that we recently recalled His Passion through Easter, Ascension and approach Pentecost.  Read John 17 and assimilate Jesus’ Great Prayer to His Father. “Do I have to drink this Cup?” “Thy Will Be Done, Not Mine!” Our older Jewish brothers and sisters
tell us that the Last (Passover) Supper wasn’t a real Passover…. as it didn’t have a fourth Cup, ‘The Cup of HOPE’.... I say to you they in fact are wrong! But with LOVE! Jesus left the upper-room Pasha, for the Garden of His Passion taking the Cup with Him.  He consumed the Fourth Cup! That Cup of Hope…. For us and through the Eucharist we consume His Body…. and BLOOD in a manner of Bread and Wine!  People! Open your eyes… Open your ears, to see and to hear what our Holy Father is telling us…. Auspice Maria

Then he and the hierarchy need to do something about it all, unless they want the Church to be exclusive as the synagogue of Jesus’ time was. Maybe it’s time for a new public healing rite (as in Acts) led by him and the world’s bishops? The goal would be spiritual healing and, if God wishes, physical healing. The age of a dictatorial, non-serving, Church is over.

I was taught that RC doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the seven sacraments are mysteries and as a consequence of their mysteriousness no sinful human mind can fully comprehend them.

perhaps, the holier and more devoted a RC is the better he or she may enter in to these mysteries.

in the end, for me, I find it presumptuous for so many who post here and elsewhere to write as though they have entered so far into the sacred mysteries that they are fully qualified to criticize and question those who have been given the office of leadership within the RCC by the Holy Spirit.

for example, how many who write have the same understanding of the sacred mysteries today that they had twenty years ago.  if they are anything like me and the people I treasure, their understanding, their acceptance, their knowledge and their devotion have grown, have increased for the better.

consider then when you write, is my knowledge and understanding of the sacred mysteries developed to such a level that I can honestly criticize and question the magisterium’s decision to explore further and more deeply these sacred mysteries (including the sacrament of matrimony);  especially in light of how different the human gestalt is today compared to 1,900 years ago?

our cardinals and bishops, for the most part, have spent many decades honing, so to speak, their knowledge, understanding and devotion to Jesus.  they have received training intellectually and spiritually that far surpasses most of us.

the CCC is not the Catholic faith nor the Catholic Church.

the faith is not a black and white compendium of all that has been written since the Ascension of the Lord.

Theresa H,

EF = “Extraordinary Form” - Latin Mass

OF = “Ordinary Form” - Novus Ordo (English) Mass

And yes, we need to pray for our Pope and Bishops, I try to daily. God Bless our Holy Church and our Shepherds.

First, I’ve lost track of what the “EF” and the “OF” stands for…!!!  As for the rest…..., let us keep Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and the Bishops in union with him in prayer—and trust in Jesus’ Promise to be with His Church “until the end of time.”

Well said (above)

Howard,

An added note, I went to a Mass in Wisconsin where the Novus Ordo mass was done so beautifully and reverently and I loved it. The parish is thriving and there were 30 to 40 for a weekday mass in a town of about 2000 people. The priest told me afterwards that he really preferred the Latin Mass and it heavily influenced the way he did the Novus Ordo Mass. There is definitely room for both but we need a strong unashamed Church that is willing to scream the truth from the roof tops without compromise no matter which form of the mass we prefer.

Good Point Howard,

I actually go to Mass in both the EF and the OF. I didn’t know really how to get my point across without getting political (conservative vs liberal). What I meant by traditionalists would be those who are like most of the traditionalists I know. They go to both forms of the Mass but prefer the Latin Mass, not because it is in Latin, or that it is the old way but because generally they are more reverent and stick with the rubrics of the Church. The priests are generally not afraid to lay down the truths of the Church in no uncertain terms. Also the parishes seem to be much better environment for them and their children. I was out of the church for 30 years prior to attending a FSSP parish and I was overwelmed by the love and kindness of the parishioners. I was struck by their holiness and love for God by both the young and old.

In the last two years I have come closer to God and find myself ever more drawn to serve him more.

May God bless our holy Church, our pope, our bishops, and our priests.

@St Donatus said, “After another 20 or 30 years, the only Catholics left will be the ‘evil’ traditionalists who don’t love their neighbor enough to turn their back on God.”  Yes and no.  Anyone who is not “with the times” will be called “traditionalist”, as well as many very nasty things indeed.  They will be people who hold on to both Sacred Tradition and, frankly, human tradition, which though fallible is still of incalculable value.  If, on the other hand, you mean they will be those who have never “sullied” themselves with the Novus Ordo Mass, or who have “repented” of it and disavowed it, you are spouting nonsense.

There is no magic about these things.  People want to believe that the sheer aesthetic beauty of the EF will magically draw in converts, prevent families from falling about, crush heresy, and eliminate concupiscence.  If only it were that simple!  But a quick look at Traditionalist communities today, or a good knowledge of a Traditionalist friend, shows that it just isn’t so—and history shows it never has been.

There is much to be said in favor of the EF, but it is NOT magic.

St. Donatus, what drives me crazy is how some people just can’t see the truth you so exquisitely describe. De-emphasizing the moral and doctrinal demands of the faith in order to “reach” people just doesn’t work. It has the opposite of the intended effect. People respond to a faith that makes demands on them. Even if it is just a few at first. But then their example becomes attractive to others, and the Church grows and prospers. De-emphasizing the Church’s moral doctrine is exactly the opposite of what the Church needs at this moment in history. And failing to impose consequences on “public” Catholics (be they business people, politicians, academics or even heretical, homosexual activist priests) who are in open rebellion against the Church and its teachings is a recipe for disaster. It conveys the clear message that while we say that assent to the Magisterium is required to be a faithful Catholic, we don’t mean it: you can believe whatever you want and still claim to be a Catholic in good standing.

Thank you @St Donatus: God’s chosen never labor in pain. The victory is the LORD’s. Persevere!

PS on my previous post about the spiritual wasteland of my birth place. I went out to eat with my relatives who were so very spiritual when I was a child. I was the only one to say grace before meals. I couldn’t even get them to join me in prayer for our meal. Not even my elderly god mother would pray with me. I was so sad, crushed by the total devastation of their faith. Their shepherds have lead the wolves to them. Thank God for the holy priests I met in Wisconsin. They were able to let me see that the faith isn’t dead.

I was just home visiting my family in Iowa, but this time as a restored Catholic after 30 years away. Yes, I believe all that the Church teaches now. I have studied the Baltimore Catechism because it makes Church teaching understandable and applies it to everyday life. (I can’t seem to understand the new CCC. It appears somewhat ambiguous and high minded. I guess I am just not smart enough.)

Anyway, I was truly shocked by the change in the attitude and beliefs of my relatives over the last 40 years. In that part of Iowa probably 90% of the people have been baptized Catholic. As a child I remember the deep devotion of ALL of my relatives. Most of the time when I would visit they were praying the rosary, serving the Church somehow, praying, making food for sickly or poor parishioners, etc. Signs of their faith were everywhere, in their home altar, pictures of the sacred heart, statues of Mary in the yard, etc.

Today it is all gone. It is like a spiritual wasteland. Every sign and symbol of faith has been abolished. Even the statues, saints and altars have been torn out of the once awe inspiring Catholic Churches. In order to find any faith I had to cross the river into Wisconsin where a very holy Cardinal Burke and Bishop Morlino are attempting to restore some of that faith. At least some of the parishes in Wisconsin are seeing a restoration of faith. When I visit one of the small town Churches in Wisconsin I find 30 to 40 people at weekday mass. Most of the Churches in Iowa have canceled daily mass and if they do have one you might see four people attend.

What is the difference between these two areas, the Bishop. In Iowa there has been a long series of liberal bishops who have systematically worked there best to destroy the faith of their sheep. (I don’t think this was on purpose but the result was the same.)

How? Well they didn’t change Church teaching, but they did change what priests and teachers of the Church emphasized, how they preached, what they taught, how they disciplined, what was taught to the seminarians and the priests who were to guide the people of God. Most of these priests simply lost their faith over time. They taught their sheep that beauty in Churches was evil because it was material rather than spiritual, then they taught them that the Bible was just fairy tales that taught a good lesson. They went on to teach a relativistic view of sin where nothing was sin unless you hurt someone elses feelings. What they considered spiritual was in fact feelings of community in the parish rather than the spiritual connection with God one needs to be truly holy.

The fruits of all this in Iowa is very self centered form of Catholicism that includes no responsibility to pray, attend mass, or love God. Just don’t hurt anyones feelings.

So neither Pope Francis or the synod on the Family need change and doctrine, all they have to do is put out ambiguous statements about loving your neighbor, being accepting of others, not allowing doctrine to get in the way of that acceptance, etc. After another 20 or 30 years, the only Catholics left will be the ‘evil’ traditionalists who don’t love their neighbor enough to turn their back on God.

@Howard on Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:32 PM (EDT): we are getting off topic on matters previously and extensively discussed (please feel free to see my comments on Disqus), thus, you have the last word.

@FMShyanguya—Waving the requirement for a second miracle for both John Paul II and John XXIII was an authoritative action; it may or may not have been wise, because it gives the strong appearance of favoritism, but it was authoritative, and we have to respect it.  Issuing Lumen Fidei and Evangelii Gaudium were authoritative acts, and we have to respect them.  His formal teachings on faith and morals are infallible, but even his acts of governance have the authority of his office, and they deserve respect for that reason.

The Kasper comments and the reaction to them are not authoritative actions by the Pope, though.  The comments were those of Kasper, who seems to have backtracked a little on them, and the Pope’s reception of them seems to have been little more than polite.  Pope Francis took no decisive or authoritative action regarding them, so there is no possible choice between obeying God and obeying Francis.  Ditto for surprising acts like washing the feet of women.  Contrary to a lot of what you will read, Francis didn’t teach, let alone govern, by this act.  The teaching office of the Pope is not a game of charades or Taboo—a large part of what makes those games fun is that the ambiguity leads to wildly inaccurate guesses, but ambiguity and wildly inaccurate guesses are not the hallmark of real teaching.

@Howard: the understanding is yours.
1st and 2nd paragraphs OK. As regards your third, the first Pope answers, ‘Obedience to God comes before obedience to men’. Which is already very evident by the pushback against the Kasper Proposal.

@Howard: the understanding is yours.

@FMShyanguya—I did not equate “goodness” and “holiness”, but “a good Pope” and “a holy Pope”.  Holiness is, as you say, essential to a Pope being effective AS a Pope, whereas it is not in most other roles.  (E.g., Pappy Boyington was not at all holy, but he was a VERY good fighter pilot.)

On the other hand, Pope St. Celestine V was apparently a quite holy man, but he was a very ineffective Pope.  Holiness is necessary, but it is not sufficient; a good Pope must be a holy Pope, but not every holy Pope will necessarily be a “good” (effective) Pope.

What we CANNOT do is say something along the lines of, “He is Pope to the extent that he is holy.  To the extent that I am not convinced of his holiness, I am not convinced of his legitimate authority, and to that extent I am free to disregard his formal actions as Pope.”  That has always been a popular temptation; it solves Henry’s question, “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?”  It seems to be the line taken by just about everyone who has been excommunicated over the past few decades—that unless they ratify an action of the Pope, it has no authority, so of course their excommunications “didn’t really happen”.  That is already at least halfway to the Protestant position in which everyone is a “pope” unto himself.

@Howard, in my comments, I do not equate good Pope to mean holy Pope. Holiness, to which all are called is loving God above all things and loving others as Jesus loved us; being perfect as Our Heavenly Father is perfect; and showing we love the LORD by keeping his commandments. The LORD’s commission to Peter is: ‘Feed my lambs, look after my sheep, and feed my sheep’. So a good Pope is the one who feeds LORD’s lambs, looks after the LORD’s sheep, and feeds the LORD’s sheep. My comments have been that a pope cannot be good, i.e. fulfill his commission as pope if he is not holy.
Another scripture supports your last sentence i.e. there is a wisdom that only comes with holiness of life (cf. Ps 119:99).

@FMShyanguya—Yeah.  Everyone agrees that “a good Pope” is synonymous with “a holy Pope”, but the LCWR, Wir Sind Kirche, and the like have ideas of “holiness” that are not recognizably Christian.  I’m sure the Austrian couple who were just excommunicated thought (at some level) they were pursuing a life of increasing holiness!

So it’s great to have a Pope who is a genius; it’s much better to have a Pope who is a saint; and it’s best of all to have one who is both.  However, it will rarely if ever be the case that the Pope is either the holiest or the wisest Catholic of his day; his authority is not based on his own wisdom or his own holiness.  “For see your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble: But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong.”

@Don on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:18 AM (EDT): Spot-on!

“I think almost everyone understands this; people who disagree about which Popes were good and which were bad generally also have different ideas about what holiness is.”

Epitomizes the crisis of our times that Pope Emeritus Benedict spoke about: a movement toward a dictatorship of relativism, That what is good, and true, and holy is a matter of personal preference.

Thanks for the clarity with which you’ve written this article.  Too often, myself included, we tend to gasp at the latest “quote/spin/fabrication” which supposedly has just been uttered by Pope Francis.  As you so rightly say, the Pope cannot and will not change essential teachings of the Catholic Faith.  We must realize that the father of lies is always trying to trip us up.  Jesus is the Truth.  His words to us were not lies. He tells us that he has given us the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth.  We can rest assured that our Faith is protected.  To fear otherwise, while human, is to lack faith in what our Lord promised.  Remember the motto on the Divine Mercy Image: Jesus, I trust in you.

Oh boy…. the neo-Catholics are really sticking their heads in the sand these days.
The aging hippies in the Church are working on their last ditch effort to self-destruct the Church - Their work from the 1970s arent over and the harm they will do is very troublesome.
If Mark Shea refuses to believe nothing is happening and “all is fine” or “Hey, its no different now than its ever been under the past” - Then I suppose you are striving for bliss…. Because the ignorance is surely there.

At the heart of concerns about any Pope abolishing what has always been taught as a truth that must be believed and embracing error *for the Church* is a lack of faith in God’s power to protect his Church from teaching error, a lack of belief in Jesus’s words in Matthew 16:18, “...I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (As a convert to the Catholic faith, I struggled with this myself at one time.)
.
One of my favourite proofs of God keeping His promise is Pope Vigilius.
.
Briefly, he was a deacon in the 500s. Empress Theodora told him if he promised to embrace error (e.g., the Monophysite heresy) if he became pope that she would get her General to make Vigilius pope and give him a large amount of gold. Vigilius enthusiastically agreed. Theodora had Pope St. Silverius deposed and banished as he would not give in to her demands. As long as Vigilius was Anti-Pope he embraced error and all that accompanies it. But when he became the legitimate Pope, Vigilius denounced heresy and anathematized the very heretics he had previously promised to support (see A History of Christendom, vol 2: The Building of Christendom; Warren H. Carrol, PhD.; Christendom College Press, Front Royal, VA; 1987; ch 6, pp 165-174).

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, May 27, 2014 6:25 PM (EDT):

Just wait until PF comes out with his statement on climate change. Oh man, are we gonna see some jitters then!”
************
The pope is not a scientist, but obviously pollution shows disrespect for Creation & the Creator.Most people can at least agree on that & take some responsibility.

I would stay far away from “the latest Vortex”.... The “Vortex” is contrary to the theological virtue of Faith.

I should add that over the past 40-50 years and more, all we have had is holy Popes—canonized Popes.  The “standard” today is, consequently, very high.  Imagine if today would be like the 13th Century—when there were 3 Popes—at which time the Lord inspired St. Catherine of Sienna to go to Avignon and tell the true Pope to go back to Rome…, which he did!

What concerns me most is the gut feeling I have that Pope Francis is far more “progressive” than his slips and stumbles in the media reveal.  I get the sense that he wants to move the Church WAAAAY to the left but feels constrained by the reaction he gets from the conservatives in the Church. So, it’s a strategy of pushing everywehre he can without creating schism or outright rebellion.  I just have the sense that he’s not revealing his true feelings and aims. One thing that reveals much about a leader is who he surrounds himself with; who seems to have his ear and his support.  In this case, that scares me in that he seems to be using Kasper and Rodriguez-Maradiaga, among others, to float ideas that he as Pope can’t personally put out in the public arena without creating a firestorm.  This seems to have two purposes: a) the desensitize people the radical ideas so that when he later throws his weight behind them it won’t be as much of a shock, and b) to test just how far he can go without creating a firestorm and possibly even a schism. Just the way I see it.

When it appears that Pope Francis is not acting as we think/believe he should, we should pray for Pope Francis and be at peace, and remember: JESUS IS LORD of HIS CHURCH, and HE has PROMISED to be with HIS CHURCH “until the end of time.” (Mt 28:20)

@FMShyanguya said, “It is a fallacy that a Pope need not be holy to be a good Pope….”  Well, that would be an error, but it’s not one I have ever heard anyone suggest.  On the other hand, history shows that we can have Popes who are not particularly holy.  They may have been cunning statesmen, or they may have been great patrons of learning, but they were not good Popes; yet even if they were bad Popes, they were still Popes.  I think almost everyone understands this; people who disagree about which Popes were good and which were bad generally also have different ideas about what holiness is.  One way or the other, though, a Pope’s authority does not come from his personal holiness, any more than a priest’s authority to consecrate the Eucharist or to forgive sins in the Confessional comes from his personal holiness.

Right, he can’t change teaching but he can water them down, confuse them, not teach or enforce them, tell us not to “obsess” about mass murder so the moral doctrines of the church become mockeries and have no effect at all.

Cardinal Kasper and his “knelling theology” what ever that means is running the show and we have a modernist friendly church.

Just watch the latest Vortex and see the sodomite bishops and Priests in Australia who are lading souls to hell.

But in the good news section I see that Time magazine loves the Pope!!!!
How would you like that on you soul for all eternity!

  If I hear the words that Francis follows Jesus, in preaching mercy I will scream. He did speak of Mercy to be sure but he also had a lot of hard sayings about God’s justice. This is what serious sin Hell are all about. BTW one of the more stunning things he said on the plane that is not being talked about is Pius XII now NOT being considered for Sainthood because he has not worked a second miracle. EXCUSE ME? What did you just do with John XXIII just a month ago? You made him a Saint without a miracle go over and read what the Catholic Herald says about this travesty of Justice. Pius HAS worked several miracles and one of them was of St Pio having a vision of his Soul going to Heaven. I am sorry between this and the new persecution of the NUNS of the FI order, Francis simply cannot be taken seriously that he is a loyal Son of the Church.

At what point do all the intellectual gymnastics begin to stretch even your robust tolerance for doctrinal malleability, Mark? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, amiright?

In the event anyone reads this before it’s deleted or flippantly responded to with scorn, derision, and ad hominem, you’re right to be concerned about Pope Francis. The more you learn your faith, the more what he says will be jarring to you.

I recommend you start by reading a few pre-1950 encyclicals and other papal writings. Dominici Pascendi Gregis, Mortalium Animos, Mediator Dei, the Syllabus of Errors, etc. The popes of the late 19th and early 20th century absolutely saw this train wreck coming, and sought to prevent it.

Sadly, nobody reads them anymore.

Surprise! Another Mark Shea column explaining the pope’s words and actions. Interesting: he did not have to do the same for BXVI and JPII.

I don’t think the Pope intends to change church doctrine. I think he is trying to be more emphatic on “social justice” and less on “cultural justice.”  But BOTH are necessary —- to give to each what is due. (“justice”, Aristotle).  Unfortunately, he DOES make people nervous because he does not realize fully yet that everything he says or does is under a microscope and that there are factions out there looking to interpret each thing so seen in favor of their pet interest (e.g., same sex marriage or unions).  He needs to be humble enough (and he is humble) to get some PR advice as well as a good person to vet each of his speeches. And, when he talks on a sensitive topic, such as income inequality, he should always add the phrase ” I am not saying….” and then inserting the idea that would make people nervous.  E.g, “I am not saying that the state should confiscate wealth and give it to whomever it chooses. I am saying that the state should encourage, by incentives or tax deductions, persons to give directly to the poor and that the states of the world that own immense resources should not hold on to them for the benefit of the rulers but distribute the income from such resources for the benefit of the less fortunate.”

Just wait until PF comes out with his statement on climate change. Oh man, are we gonna see some jitters then!

It is a fallacy that a Pope need not be holy to be a good Pope, which means ‘Feed my lambs, look after my sheep, and feed my sheep’. What the LORD wants of Peter each time is preceded by Peter’s act of (sorrow and) love.
Loving the LORD means keeping the LORD’s commandments. See also ‘cut off from Me (the LORD), you can do nothing’.
The OT and NT are full of warnings to bad shepherds who have wrecked havoc on the LORD’s flock and scattered them. It isn’t the media railing against the Pope, they are celebrating. It is just your normal Catholics, as the ones commenting here,  who lamenting the consternation and confusion caused by the Pope.
For a the Church to baptize anyone, it make a prudential inquiry and judgment. In the case children, a founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic (in the Faith). Hence god parents. What has the Pope said and done when an Archbishop in Argentina allowed a child of a homosexual couple to be baptized?
I recall the LORD’s words, ‘Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You who travel over sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when you have him you make him twice as fit for hell as you are.’

Just one simple thought.  Pope Francis is following in the steps of Jesus. Jesus was driven and motivated totally by LOVE and compassion. Jesus is God, the Creator who IS love.  Our pope loves.  He shows it in all he says and does.  He is not deciding things or making statements from a political thought process or with some weird strategy.  He is responding out of LOVE to everything. 
If he could heal the sick and raise the dead, he would! Maybe he can!! I am saddened when I briefly listen to secular news casters.  They do not understand pure love and truth.  They do not KNOW Jesus. They analyze from a humanistic perspective incorrectly and have no idea what and why the Pope does and says what he does. They need some wisdom.  They need Jesus.  They are confusing the people who listen to them.
Pray for the real truth and good news to overshadow all these confused people. It is not God who confuses, it is the devil. . .but people do not care to believe he exists.  Funny since he motivates their every thought and action and they are blind and cannot see who is driving their car. Thank you.

I would like to hear the Pope’s message to the world be that of St. Peter in his great speech on the morning of Pentecost after having just received the Holy Spirit: “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Personally, I think what “the people” need to hear is a strong and unambiguous call to conversion (or re-conversion) and repentance. They need to be urged with called with utmost urgency to reject the corrupt modern culture that attempts to put Man in God’s place and return to God. They need to be told that it’s time to grow up and return to lives of personal holiness and fidelity to Church teaching. That, of course, is why I will never be Pope!

“I’m sure the self-righteous (or easily scandalized) faithful of Jesus’ day were jitterized when Jesus failed to condemn the woman taken in adultery, or brought a tax collector into the Twelve. Francis is not, of course, Jesus, but he has not done anything or said anything that is not firmly within the Church’s Tradition.” Jesus said go and sin no more. There was repentence in the sinners you speak of. I don’t recall the Pope using the words “repentence or conversion” - Only mercy.  God is also justice.

I’m sure the self-righteous (or easily scandalized) faithful of Jesus’ day were jitterized when Jesus failed to condemn the woman taken in adultery, or brought a tax collector into the Twelve. Francis is not, of course, Jesus, but he has not done anything or said anything that is not firmly within the Church’s Tradition.

We must not forget that the head of the Church is Jesus, not the pope.

“Just to be clear, there is a possibility of doctrinal change”

This is absolutely false. But the author clarifies a little later. To put it simply, doctrines are based on Truth. Truth doesn’t change because God is Truth and God doesn’t change. But, a doctrine can be further defined or clarified. This is one purpose of the councils. So there’s nothing to worry about.

For example, the Trinity is a doctrine and it is based on Truth because it was divinely revealed to us as public revelation. It wasn’t officially defined until around A.D. 300 because that’s when it needed to be spelled out in detail to avoid heresies and schisms. That doesn’t mean it was invented or changed. It always existed because God always existed.

Thank you very much for posting this letter with its concerns and your responses; it echoes a lot of my own anxieties.

The upcoming synods on the family is what is spooking a lot of Catholics, as so many voices in the culture (and in various degrees of unity with the Church) are predicting, some happily and some fearfully, that it will launch changes in the Church’s discipline that in practice would be indistinguishable from changes in doctrine.

Catholics older than I am have told me that it is similar to the months before Humanae Vitae was published. All the Best and Brightest were predicting that the Church would come up with some accommodation for the use of artificial birth control…and we all know how those hopes were dashed. I’d bet my money that the bishops’ synods will turn out the same way: they will be ‘pastoral’ of course (what Church synod or document in living memory has not been pastoral?) but they will strengthen and clarify Church doctrine, not undercut it. As always, the Holy Spirit calls us not to place bets on anything, but to keep our pope and our bishops in our prayers.

The Catholic church has not changed the teaching of “no salvation outside the church” but they don’t enforce it. Does the church tells the Jews the quote from Jesus, “You will die in your own sins, if you don’t believe that I am He.” ? Do you think that Pope Francis told the Rabbi in the Holy Land that quote?  So, no, the church can’t change the doctrine but, like the Anglicans, they don’t enforce them.

He is a Jesuit. They are known for double speak?
He is bringing more to the Church? and losing even more than he gains.

WSquared - All of the anecdotes you describe are wonderful examples of Cardinal Bergolio being a good pastor - and example to other priests. It is clear that he despises anything that smacks of “exclusion” or erecting barriers between the people and access to God’s grace.  The vast majority of these “barriers” are not doctrinal. I was actually shocked to learn that some priests would refuse to baptize the children of unwed mothers!  But taking communion in a state of mortal sin is pretty fundamental. Cardinal Muller’s explication of this in the letter he issues on behalf of the CDF laid this out with absolute clarity. One presumes he had Pope Francis’ authority for that. Then Pope Francis puts forward Cardinal Kasper to address the bishops with what MANY bishops, priests and laity feel is an absolutely heretical proposal.  And Kasper claims that Pope Francis agrees with his proposal.  So what are we to think?  It seems that the Pope wants an open and free-wheeling discussion of this matter.  I for one don’t think that is healthy for the Church AT ALL. I fear it is opening a can of worms that will exacerbate divisions in the Church and the fallout could be dramatic if Kasper is right that the Pope supports his proposal.  It could result in a cataclysmic schism. It would certainly destroy the faith of many of the most loyal Catholics because it would mean the Church really is just abandoning the teaching of Jesus and its long-held doctrine to conform to the culture in order to “meet people where they are.”  The Pope has made so many comments that I can’t quote them all here, to he effect that the Church’s doctrine is not an unchanging “monolith” but that it “develops” over time to meet the needs of any given age.  Well, perhaps that’s true, and I am just waking up to the fact that the Church isn’t what I thought.  Digging into the issue, we see the age-old doctrine that “there is no salvation outside the Church” was “re-formulated” in Vatican II to mean the exact opposite - that all salvation comes from the Church but indeed one need not necessarily be in the Church to be saved.  So, I guess this issue of the possibility of opening up communion to those living in what the Church has always called a state of ongoing adultery has challenged me to look at other areas where doctrine has been “developed” over time and I am wondering whether such “developments” were really in fact changes of doctrine and, if so, what that means for the idea that the Church cannot err in such matters. And if the Church can - and has -erred in such matters, what does that mean about the Church itself?

I was much more nervous at Pope Francis’ comments in the beginning. Now i try to find the truth part in what he says, and the other part which the media uses to bolster their agenda…i know it’s there but what can I do other than pray. I ask Our Lady to keep me faithful to the TRUTH no matter what happens. I prayed that prayer as a child and she has kept me safe in this regard. I trust her to continue. I keep close to Jesus in the Eucharist, regular confession and try to have peace about all the rest. Years ago my Catholic aunts spoke of a time prophesied in Scripture when there would be a great apostasy in the Church and many would fall into error while thinking they were following the truth. That terrified me so I asked Mary to never let me be deceived. Pray to have peace about all this.

Don, the peace of the Lord be with you.  I don’t think Pope Francis has a disdain for doctrine as that he’s concerned that we can erect unnecessary barriers between people by the way in which we go about that doctrine.  For example, it is absolutely right for a man and woman, both poor, to marry in the Church, but it would be wrong to make it seem prohibitive them to marry in the Church by talking about the parish fee almost as soon as they walk in the door.  While Cardinal Bergoglio, Pope Francis baptized the children of couples who are unmarried, and then invited that couple to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.  He likewise baptized the children of a woman who had had them by several men.  She admitted to being in mortal sin, and I assume he heard her Confession as well as baptized the children.  He also celebrated the baptism with them afterwards with soda and sandwiches.  He didn’t say that having children out of wedlock is okay; rather, he met people where they were and gently nudged them back onto the right track. 
.
Moreover, how many of us have heard over and over from our parents and other relatives that “divorced people cannot receive Holy Communion”?  But the Church’s teaching is that divorced people are not barred from Holy Communion; it’s only if they are divorced and remarried without an annulment.  Big difference, and a very crucial one.  Enough times, mostly well-meaning people simply don’t think about how Church teaching coherently fits together—probably because they assumed, like almost every modern, that “religion” need not have anything to do with reason.  How many people essentially grow up learning that the Church’s teaching on human sexuality is essentially some form of “you’ll ruin your reputation”?  Theology of the Body?  What’s that?  Catholic orthodoxy therefore gets boiled down to a ton of “don’ts” and “ticking all the right boxes,” when its so much more than that, which has nothing whatsoever to do with eschewing doctrine and dogma.  Rather, it’s what the doctrine and dogma allow us to see in terms of what we receive, and practice is how we pass on that gift rather than hoard it to ourselves. 
.
There are two basic ways of dumbing down the Catholic faith:  to lean either too strict or too lax.  Bad catechesis and bad practice tends to run along either, or even both simultaneously.  What’s been a very real teachable moment for the Church in Pope Francis is how he addresses this.

McMurphy, please come back.  Don’t let the careless actions of others ruin the Catholic faith for you:  Jesus wants you to receive Him, and He is waiting for you to come to Him so that you can participate in your own salvation.  The Church belongs to Christ, not to you, me, or anyone else.  She is contingent upon Him, not her all-too-human members, which includes her priests.  The promise of Christ is the best and utmost reason of all to come back—for “Lord, to whom shall we go?”  He can and does work through imperfect people.  He is merciful, but no milquetoast:  so you will indeed find the rigor (but not rigidity) that you need to stay grounded and rooted, but also the grace, mercy, and forgiveness necessary to live it—but seek, and you shall find.  He also protects the Sacraments—unless the Mass is invalid, He is still present (although the fact that the Mass is still valid is no excuse for treating the liturgy with disrespect, and even the utmost sincerity and doing one’s best still legitimately beg the question of ultimate direction).
.
Bernadette has a good suggestion in terms of finding a Traditional Latin Mass.  But I will suggest attending both the TLM and the Novus Ordo.  The TLM will enable you to pray the Novus Ordo like never before, so long as you let it.  I would also suggest that you never pit the TLM against the Novus Ordo, but instead ask yourself how they complement each other.  ...doing the latter might also help you see how Pope Francis approaches things a little better, and pitting the two against each other is never helpful.  So my invitation to you is not only to come back, but to “come and see!”

Everything the Pope and his close allies are saying seems to be a preparation for change in the Church’s timeless moral doctrine disguised as either “development” or “re-formulation” of such f doctrine. This is bringing about a crisis of faith for many, including me. It exposes for us how weak our faith is. If my faith were strong, I would be be like Mr. Shea, at peace knowing the Holy Spirit would not allow this man to destroy the Church by exposing it as always having been a fraud. Alas, I am not at peace but wracked with anxiety at just about everything the Holy Father says. Pope Francis clearly has a distaste for doctrine to the extent he sees it as erecting barriers between the people and the Lord.  I am afraid he is a sentimentalist in this regard, and that for him this will prove to be more important than preserving the integrity of the Church’s doctrine. If the Church accepts the Kasper proposal on divorce, remarriage and communion, which seems to have the approval of the Pope, I really do fear the Church will be rent asunder.  I also fear what will happen if the Church does not adopt Kasper’s proposal now that expectations have been raised. Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!

It does not take a lot of effort to speak clearly.  It does not take a lot of effort to use precise words, i e “homosexual” not “gay”, because, in the real world, words mean something.  Jesuit-speak is the antithesis of clarity, so we have
what we have.  For a man of his age, for a man of his position, PF frequently speaks carelessly.

Clearly the pope cannot change doctrine - none ever could.  But that doesn’t mean the faithful can’t sill be harmed through poor catechesis, and confusing statements that affirm dissenters and discourage the faithful.  If I had a dime for every time I have been told “who am I to judge?”  That statement alone has not led to clarity on the Church’s teachings on sexuality, but has instead emboldened those that reject it.  Hardly a day goes by that Francis doesn’t say something along these lines.  We must come to terms that he is a man, and that everything he says and does is not necessarily correct.  For heaven’s sake, look at the history of the popes and you will see a lot worse than Francis.  We have just been blessed to have two magnificent popes in JPII and Benedict, and the bar is set very high.

Given that the RC church has routinely ignored the members of the clergy who are in sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex, making too much of the Anglican church - or more properly, the provinces of the Anglican communion in the West, since Africans mostly haven’t gone there - is a serious case of planks and specks. Which isn’t to say that the Anglican church is getting it right - just that defender of Rome need to realise they aren’t defending a clear line!

It’s the ambiguity…..

“Posted by Andy on Monday, May 26, 2014 8:50 PM (EDT): Jesus created jitters among the faithful, too.”

Pope Francis is no Jesus ...

The Church prevails in spite of a Pope not because of Popes. The Church is the LORD’s.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your post. Could I ask for a clarification on your comment, “I do think the Church, having fought a long rear guard retreat against civil unions, will probably throw in the towel on that…”?

Does that mean that you believe the Church will fall silent on the topic of Civil Unions? Endorse them? Something else?

From the perspective of 1 Cor 9:16 “Woe to me if I don’t preach the Gospel” and other verses pointing to articulating hard sayings it seems that if the Church doesn’t continue to denounce such unions she’s failing her mandate. Although she didn’t denounce slavery during Apostolic & sub-Apostolic times, she was met with this long-standing reality at her founding. I would find it difficult to envision her doing what would be justifiably viewed as an about face.

Thanks for all your work & God bless!

  I agree with Romulus. The Faith has been in a crisis since 1968 with this false spirit of Vatican II which is nothing but Modernism which St Pius X condemned. The innovations and novelties and experiments comes from many poorly worded documents of the Council that is a fact. The idea of Collegiality made the Bishops Conferences a Parallel Magisterium if you will. He may not change doctrine but my problem is a majority of Polls including the Vatican’s own questionnaire proves they EXPECT him to change Church teaching. And sadly many prelates he surrounds himself with keep hinting at this like the Kasper’s and Marx and even the head of the Synod on the Family. The head of the Bishops conference backtracked from his Precious statements. Meanwhile the Nuns from the FI like their FFI counterparts themselves are getting a visitation as well.

Jesus created jitters among the faithful, too.

A history of civilizations - ancient Egypt, Alexander’s Greece, Caesar’s Rome - shows that the culture begins to fail when members of the “ruling class” - in the case of Rome, everyone who owned slaves - choose to stop having and rearing children. This was often accompanied by an increase in the practice of (what we would call) “perversions” of the gifts God gave humanity.
In Western Europe, the assumed “Christians”, mostly materialists with no real allegiance to Christianity, are failing to have enough children to replace their numbers. By contrast, the Muslims in Europe, many immigrants from poor Middle Eastern and African lands, are having lots of children.
In democracies that vote for their leadership periodically, can you see a trend developing?
We pray daily for our children and grandchildren.  More prayer is needed.
TeaPot562

This is addressed to “McMurphy”.  Firstly, please come back to the Church for the sake of your salvation.  Our Lord loves you and wants you back!  Period.  I urge you to find a good, holy priest to help resolve your issues.  You might try to find a parish where the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated and you are unlikely to experience any innovations, rather the authentic Faith.  I would point you in the direction of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter at http://www.fssp.org/en/index.htm
or the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest at http://www.institute-christ-king.org/, both faithful to the Magisterium of the Church.  Secondly, and the other reason for writing is the shocking information you imparted about the priest’s behavior at your local Catholic Church.  These are extremely serious cases of abuse if in fact true and must be ended immediately.  I would strongly urge you as a Catholic (practicing or not you are still Catholic) to defend Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and the other Sacraments by reporting this as a matter of urgency to the local Bishop.  If he doesn’t respond, take it further.  Or find another priest to tell.  Even if you pick up the phone anonymously, this has to stop.  What an outrage!  What a sacrilege!  What a terrible situation to put his dying flock in.  What a scandal!  If true, the all I can say is, “may God have mercy on his soul.”  We ought to pray for priests such as these who seem to have lost the Faith, if they ever had it at all!!  May God bless you McMurphy.  I will pray for your return to the One, True Faith of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  May God bless you, Your sister is Christ.

Well written and clear!

Great response Mark.

Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
Holy Father: Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity.
- English Translation of Pope Francis’ Corriere della Sera Interview | ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome
Homosexual couples “need legal support from society,” the secretary-general of the Brazilian bishops’ conference has stated.
Bishop Leonardo Steiner, an auxiliary of the Brasilia archdiocese, told the daily O Globo said that homosexual couples need legal protection against violence.
The Brazilian bishops opposed the recognition of same-sex marriage, which began last year in Brazil. But Bishop Steiner said that the posture of the Church can change. “The Church is always seeking to read the signs of the times, to see what must or must not change,” he said.
- Brazilian bishop: same-sex couples need legal support : News Headlines - Catholic Culture
“The Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has said that Kasper’s thinking is in tune with the pope’s.”
- A Revolution on Marriage – in Rome? | The Catholic Thing

There isn’t any rationale or excuse for those who continue to excuse the Pope; the defending of the Pope is indefensible.

The Doctrine of the Faith is in tact.  When we begin to speculate & listen to unsubstantiated rumors, we fall into the evil one’ trap.  A house divided against itself cannot stand.  We The Body of The Church,will be persecuted, marginalized, oppressed, etc.  because of our beliefs.  We are not greater than our Master, Jesus Christ.  If He walked this earth today, He would still be murdered, but only in a more highly technological way.  For The Church to change with the times is almost ironical.  If She had done so during the Reformation, allthrough the heresies the Church Doctors in particular were fighting against, The Roman Persecution, The Enlightenment ,Aranism, Palegianism, Machisism, etc..  to name only a few; she would constantly be changing with the times.  But as Christ said to Simon Peter;  “You are the rock upon which I will build My Church”.  And a rock is solid, sturdy, stable, it does not easily move.  Just as Christ is The Cornerstone, we are the livingstones that make up The Living Body of The One Holy & Apostolic Church. Rest easy, have faith, and may The God of Abraham, Isacc & Jacob, Father of Christ Jesus, grant you peace

In a sense it doesn’t matter whether Pope Francis changes teachings or not, so long as he allows it to be widely understood that he has.  Ever since 1968, many Catholics have been falsely advised that there’s a “conscience loophole” in Humanae Vitae.  Similarly, bishops do little to nothing to correct misunderstandings about fasting and abstinence (still required), turning altars around to face the people (never required or even contemplated by Vatican II), Latin and Gregorian chant (widely believed to have been done away with, but in reality mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium), Holy Communion on the tongue (always a lawful mode of reception), and more.  Silence or equivocation from Rome do plenty enough harm even when official teaching doesn’t budge.

<i>“So the Church should decouple sacramental marriage from Caesar’s delusions and conduct marriages apart from what the civil authority wants to pretend.”<i>

The Church recognizes non-sacramental marriages.

The word is homosexual, or to be even more precise, sodomites but certainly not “gay”. To use the word “gay” in reference to homosexuality is to pull that sheep’s clothing just a bit more snugly around the wolf.

In my limited experience, people who have jitters or are disturbed by what Pope Francis (but not B16 or JP2) has allegedly said or done usually fall into 3 groups:

1. they have received an oversimplified, distorted report. The simple solution is to learn to look for primary sources such as Vatican.va or reliable catholic news sites (most bloggers, even Catholic ones, are not that reliable - sometimes for reasons 2 & 3 below).

2. They are ignorant of parts of Catholic teaching - especially Catholic Social Teaching (CST) with the exception of abortion. Further investigation will usually reveal that Benedict and JP2 said something similar (eg on capitalism) but the MSM ignored it - preferring sex teachings.

One solution is to assume that the Pope probably knows more about CST than Fox News, most US politicians and half of the bloggers on National Catholic Register combined. We are all tempted to shape CST according to our political values rather than shape our political and economic values according to CST.

Other ways are: learning more about the faith from apologists like Mark, the Catechism (lookup the index & contents) and the Compendium of Social Doctrine http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

3. They are disturbed by a challenge from Pope Francis to their politics, lifestyle or attitudes. Just as Jesus disturbed many of those who considered themselves righteous or “conservative” or <insert whatever tribal label you classify yourself as>. This is the part I personally find most difficult.

Remember “the gates of hell shall not prevail ...” despite what some sedevacantists imply.

I am very concerned for the children…my grandchildren. There is ever increasing tremendous pressure and hammering on us to accept homosex. It is everywhere! The indoctrination in public schools is constant and intense. Our Catholic schools in the 80s were weak on this issue and developed programs to make sure everyone was ‘kind and accepting’ of students/persons who had same-sex attraction. Many of our adult Catholics are now perfectly willing to accept sexual activity between persons of the same sex as “normal” and think it’s not fair to prevent them from “marriage.” Our Church…we… need to go on the OFFENSIVE on this issue. Teach and preach purity for all as impurity and lack of understanding of the holy nature of conjugal love undergirds the three major moral issues of our time: homosexuality, pornography and abortion. The clerical sex scandal has seriously weakened and discouraged our priests/bishops from speaking out strongly to promote purity. They are always on the defensive, trying to manage this or that scandal. But purity…or lack of it is the bottom line. Everyone has to be chaste no matter what sex you are or who you are attracted to. We need to call on the power of Mary, Spouse of the Holy Spirit to ignite a holy fire calling for purity and to understand that sexual union is holy because Baptism elevates us to a sharing in the Divine nature of Christ. Let’s get going!

“A word to the wise is sufficient.”

We Americans didn’t think Obama could change our Constitution, but he has found devious ways to circumvent it, is trying to change it, and for all practical purposes, has to a degree, made changes to it….all for his own agenda, not for the good of the American people, and without our consent or that of Congress.

There is such a reality as renegades, whether presidents, kings, or popes, they are still men.

Yes, Our Father in Heaven protects the Catholic Church ultimately, but a lot of confusion and harm can be done to the faithful by a pope who follows his own way, be it “humble” or not.

“I have heard that often.  I’ve even repeated it myself.  But what prevents him from changing it?  If tomorrow a truely Liberal Pope gets elected as the LWCR dreams, what would happen if that Pope decided to stipulate from here forward gay marriage is legit or that Catholics can [now divorce and remarry] or that abortion before 20 weeks is not a sin?  What would stop such a Pope from doing it?”

Good question!  Re-read Numbers 22 and 23, which are about how the prophet Balaam was hired to curse Israel, which he was more than willing to do.  It was not good business to contradict a wealthy client, and it wasn’t exactly safe, either.  He bore no love towards Israel and was willing to curse them; in fact, he later gave advice as to how they could be persuaded to bring curses on themselves.  Nevertheless, he was not able to curse Israel.

Likewise, look at 1 Samuel 19:18-24, in which King Saul prophesied much against his will.  Look at Luke 1, in which Zachary was prevented from speaking.  Look even at Acts 12:23, where Herod Agrippa was struck by an angel.  There are plenty of ways God can prevent a Pope from formally teaching errors on matters of faith or morals.

“only for those remarried without annulment.”

If you receive an annulment then you haven’t remarried

“... it is a discipline of the church and not an “essential doctrine” that those who are in invalid marriages are denied the Sacrament of Eucharist. The definition of what constitutes a valid or invalid marriage is a matter of church law and not the doctrine of the church.”

Not so much.  The Church *cannot* change the fact that sex outside a valid marriage is gravely sinful.  The Church *cannot* change the fact that Catholics—especially, but not exclusively, clerics—have a responsibility to let people know what is gravely sinful.  The Church *cannot* change the fact that the it is mortally sinful to receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin—that is, having an unconfessed grave sin entered into with full knowledge and full consent.  About the only thing the Church *can* do is to tinker with what the priest, deacon, or “extraordinary” minister of the Eucharist is to do in the case of doubt.  There’s not much wiggle room there, either, since the existing laws are already (for good reason) tilted towards the presumption of innocence.

As for “what constitutes a valid or invalid marriage is a matter of church law and not the doctrine of the church”, that is only partially true.  As Dr. Ed Peters has often pointed out, there are some things the Church could change, such as the age limits for a valid marriage or the invalidity of Catholic marriages which lack a Catholic form.  That, however, is about the limit of what the Church could do.  The Church really could not allow a valid marriage to be dissolved by something other than death, or say that bigamy is not always a sin for Christians, or say that it is a good thing to receive the Eucharist regardless of one’s state of grace.

Ooops, typo.  That last sentence should say “...that Catholics can now divorce…”

This question is more out of ignorance on my part than anything else.  I would be interested in an intellegence answer.  Mark says: “The Pope is not going to alter essential doctrines. He’s just not going to. He can’t.”

I have heard that often.  I’ve even repeated it myself.  But what prevents him from changing it?  If tomorrow a truely Liberal Pope gets elected as the LWCR dreams, what would happen if that Pope decided to stipulate from here forward gay marriage is legit or that Catholics can novorce or that abortion before 20 weeks is not a sin?  What would stop such a Pope from doing it?

We still need to be clear that although there may be an underlying doctrine referenced in some of the discussion, much is still a matter of church discipline.
Jesus’ teaching on marriage is clear, but it is a discipline of the church and not an “essential doctrine” that those who are in invalid marriages are denied the Sacrament of Eucharist. The definition of what constitutes a valid or invalid marriage is a matter of church law and not the doctrine of the church. These conditions can change and indeed have changed in recent times.
Laws regarding the reception of the Sacraments are considered in a similar way. They are disciplines imposed by the church, they can be altered by he who holds the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. The authority to bind and loose belongs to the successor to the Apostle Peter.

Blesses are the rationalizers, because they….

Everything is just wonderful in every way!!!

Here is something pretty comforting. Card. Baldiserri, Secretary General of the Synod, (and who had made some unsettling comments) recently said:

“Regarding the possibility for the synod of bishops of changing the doctrine of the Church,” Cardinal Baldisseri said, “I underscore that the First Vatican Council’s document ‘Dei Filius’ affirmed that ‘understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.’”

The cardinal then continued: “And I also remind you that John XXIII said in the inaugural speech of the Second Vatican Council that ‘authentic doctrine … should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.’

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=9996

I agree that Pope Francis is creating “jitters” among many of the faithful. I am a lapsed Catholic (divorced & remarried) who longs to come back to the church.  I am open to applying for an annulment but only if I can find a church that is true to biblical teachings. I believe Pope Francis, perhaps inadvertently, has given “aid and comfort” to the very liberal wing of the church.
The only Catholic church in my area has lost it’s way - the Holy Eucharist is sent home in people’s pockets and when my dying friend requested the priest hear her confession, he replied that he didn’t think she had any sins to confess.  For now, I consider myself a member of the church of EWTN and I pray God will understand.

It’s worth pointing out that although we call the Pope the “Holy Father”, that’s really about the office, not the man.  There is a kind of weird Donatism that seems to think that the personal holiness of a Pope and the legitimacy of his office are somehow the same thing.  Now some Popes have been very saintly indeed, but some—not so much.  But even the most corrupt of the Popes was, after all, still Pope.  “Put not your faith in princes”—even princes of the Church.  The Holy Spirit does not guarantee that we will have wise and sinless men as Popes; He guarantees that in spite of a Pope’s folly, and in spite of his sinfulness, no Pope will formally teach error in faith or morals.  A foolish or sinful Pope may make his folly or sinfulness known; he may make a terrible example (which is one reason why we need to stop the game of Papal charades in which people assume that a Pope’s actions are teachings that are binding on the faithful). He may endorse theological errors in private conversations; he may make mistakes in science or even mathematics.  He may fully INTEND to formally teach error in faith or morals—he has free will.  All we are assured is that he will not DO it; he will not *formally* *teach* *errors* in *faith* or *morals*.  This is not a power or privilege given to Popes; it is a protection given to the Church from poor Popes.

I am not asserting that Pope Francis is a terrible Pope, by the way.  I am just trying to decouple the question about the solidity of the Church’s teachings from suspicions people have that he MIGHT BE a terrible Pope.

Pope Francis has made NO CHANGE to the “Doctrine of the Faith” which is contained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” (1997).
.
“….. let us ask ourselves if we have actually taken a few steps to get to know Christ and the truths of faith more,  by reading and meditating on the Scriptures,  studying the Catechism,  steadily approaching the Sacraments.” - Pope Francis, May 15, 2013.
.
Many of the Pope’s statements are for specific audiences with specific issues, - not the Church in entirety.  We must pay attention to whom the Pope is speaking.
.
Any change to Church teaching MUST be officially promulgated by the POPE in writing.
The exact Official document will be available to all, so there will be no confusion.

It would be fantastic if reassurances could stem the flow of very confusing statements by Pope Francis, many in English translation from Vatican-affiliated offices.  I know the Lord will not allow any pope to formally and universally bind the church in error on faith and morals.  But still, a lot of harm may come through non-infallible statements which confuse the faithful and encourage heretical dissent.

IF Pope Francis makes changes to church dogma, then what ? ... but let’s pray that it doesn’t happen, because it can’t.