Skip to main content

I Will Not Publicly Criticize Pope Francis, And Here's Why

You are free to call me whatever it is for people who march in lockstep, you may remind me of your educated pieties of the niceties of papal infallibility, as to where it does, and does not extend. I would most likely agree, in the abstract.

But here in the concrete, I don't care.

The reason I don't care is because the Church is the new Ark, the water is rising, and people you and I love need the grace of the sacraments, the grace of salvation. And the human man holding the very keys to the Kingdom is Pope Francis. If you want to be reasonably confident of salvation, that is, of not going to Hell, you need to submit to him, and to the Church to which he has been given charge. How inspired are your friends and family to become Catholic by the way you discuss the pope? We American Catholics treat him worse than we do Barack Obama, and then we cover ourselves with chatter like, "Well, it's not ex cathedra, and he's not infallible." True, and utterly irrelevant.

I obviously don't hear the pope's confessions. Maybe he confesses being a people-pleaser 5 times a week. Maybe he deeply regrets appointing so-and-so, or being unclear about such-and-such. But you are not the Holy Spirit, nor am I.

Please do not say, "I respect the pope, but..." Human respect is worthless, anyway. I am obligated--for the sake of the gospel and its proclamation--to give the Holy Father beyond the benefit of the doubt, because when I do not, the people outside the Church don't contemplate their need of the Church, they just wonder when this one's term is up. This isn't Barack Obama; there isn't a "better one" coming, or one who just left. There is only the sheepfold of Christ, and the successor of Peter.

St. Peter, pray for us!

Comments

Anonymous said…
Indeed Jason - the water IS rising and we all need to be in the Boat! In love, humility, and charity may we examine all things and hold tightly to God and to the Church He gave to us....

Miss you dear brother and love you very much,
Carol

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un