The Pope said what??

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The Dr. Pepper reference was a South Park scene.

[draco664]

Among other things, he said, "To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy."

This was during a homily on Wednesday in which Pope Francis also urged Christians to accept the good works that atheists perform, and condemned those who try to drive a wedge between believers and non-believers.

Am I still on the same planet??

Yup, we're still stuck here. The Vatican just announced that the pope was wrong, athiests will burn in hell afterall...

Thank His Noodliness for that, I was afraid that we were on the cusp of a new age of enlightenment and peace.

[Rageaholic]

Yup, we're still stuck here. The Vatican just announced that the pope was wrong, athiests will burn in hell afterall...

Thank His Noodliness for that, I was afraid that we were on the cusp of a new age of enlightenment and peace.

A lot of that comes from objectivist thinking (ie "only my view is right"). It's technically true, but since we're dealing with the unknown, we can't with certainty which belief is right[/U] because we don't know.

That's another thing I respect the new pope on. He doesn't claim to know who's going to heaven and who's going to hell. He has his views, but he doesn't mistake views for fact.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Interesting to note that this "correction" came from a spokesperson and not from the Pope himself. This is why you can have Pope John Paul followed by Pope Benedict. There are a lot of these conservative types in the Vatican that would have balked at that so the question is does this man have the sanction of the Pope to say that? Would Francis being forced to issue a correction cause further schisms in the Church.

It strikes me that much like when the Episcopal church became more progressive, there was immediately a part of it that attempted to outright split from it. I'd be interested to see how this plays out.

[Kheldarson]

Yup, we're still stuck here. The Vatican just announced that the pope was wrong, athiests will burn in hell afterall...

Thank His Noodliness for that, I was afraid that we were on the cusp of a new age of enlightenment and peace.

I'm not surprised, but not for the reasons y'all are listing.

One, that article title is incredibly wrong. The pope is not infallible, unless he's speaking from the chair, which he wasn't for this homily. What the homily did was open a dialogue.

Which brings us to two) Catholic dogma is determined by the Pope and Magesterium (which is who spoke in the article). Now that the Pope has declared his intent and interpretation, the Magesterium will have to meet. I'll bet in a couple of decades that this might be included in official dogma or deemed completely inappropriate.

Which leads to three) dogma and practice never change this quick. It takes a long time to change things in the church normally, unless you have a very strong and dedicated Pope. We'll see what Francis does now.

[Panacea]

Interesting to note that this "correction" came from a spokesperson and not from the Pope himself. This is why you can have Pope John Paul followed by Pope Benedict. There are a lot of these conservative types in the Vatican that would have balked at that so the question is does this man have the sanction of the Pope to say that? Would Francis being forced to issue a correction cause further schisms in the Church.

It's important to remember there is a spectrum of opinion within the Catholic Church. Unless the correction comes from the Pope himself, then I see this more as conservative elements backpedaling because since Vatican II what Francis said is actually consistent with current Church teachings.

One, that article title is incredibly wrong. The pope is not infallible, unless he's speaking from the chair, which he wasn't for this homily. What the homily did was open a dialogue.

Yeah, I noticed this as well. Many people erroneously assume that everything the Pope says is infallible, but that's not so. It's only infallible speaking ex cathedra, on matters of doctrine and dogma and must be accompanied by the seal of the Magesterisum, as you mention below. Clearly the writer of that article is not Catholic, or he would not have made such a fundamental mistake.

Which brings us to two) Catholic dogma is determined by the Pope and Magesterium (which is who spoke in the article). Now that the Pope has declared his intent and interpretation, the Magesterium will have to meet. I'll bet in a couple of decades that this might be included in official dogma or deemed completely inappropriate.

Which leads to three) dogma and practice never change this quick. It takes a long time to change things in the church normally, unless you have a very strong and dedicated Pope. We'll see what Francis does now.

I don't know that the Magesterium will meet, but they might. There was a strong current of people in the Vatican who want to undo Vatican II under Benedict. However, I don't get the impression that's Francis's agenda.

But regardless, nothing the Church does is fast. SO don't expect any profound changes or announcements any time soon.

[Pixilated]

Interesting to note that this "correction" came from a spokesperson and not from the Pope himself. *snip*

Still, I'm surprised that somebody lower in the hierarchy would publicly contradict the Pope. (It's probably happened before; I just didn't hear about it, LOL.)

[CooperArt]

I really like this new Pope.

[SongsOfDragons]

"Stop faffing about on topics like abortion and gays that make us look bad for not supporting and let's get back to helping the poor and needy and stuff!! Yannow like we're supposed to!"

Paraphrased of course.

I love this guy. Get in there Francis and make them squirm!

[s_stabeler]

are there a majority of reformists in the College Of Cardinals now, or were the traditionalists just unable to make it for the last Conclave? Because I can't see a Pope like this getting through past the traditionalists otherwise... I'm beginning to wonder when we will see some actual reforms.

[Kheldarson]

Lord knows. Heck, the last reform idea, Theology of the Body, is only really now being disseminated and understood by the laity.

[Hyena Dandy]

are there a majority of reformists in the College Of Cardinals now, or were the traditionalists just unable to make it for the last Conclave? Because I can't see a Pope like this getting through past the traditionalists otherwise... I'm beginning to wonder when we will see some actual reforms.

There aren't a lot of reformists. Most are appointees of Benedict or John Paul II, both of who appointed a lot more traditionalist people. What's key to remember is that Francis is not significantly THEOLOGICALLY that different. The difference is, essentially, what aspects of the theology he considers important.

The Catholic Church has long held that atheists can do good. The Catholic Church has long held that it's important to aide the poor, and that money is less important than human lives. The Church has long held a lot of things that its leadership hasn't. Benedict simply is sticking to the doctrine. I don't think he's a reformist. But I also certainly wouldn't describe him as traditional.

[Kheldarson]

There aren't a lot of reformists. Most are appointees of Benedict or John Paul II, both of who appointed a lot more traditionalist people. What's key to remember is that Francis is not significantly THEOLOGICALLY that different. The difference is, essentially, what aspects of the theology he considers important.

The Catholic Church has long held that atheists can do good. The Catholic Church has long held that it's important to aide the poor, and that money is less important than human lives. The Church has long held a lot of things that its leadership hasn't. Benedict simply is sticking to the doctrine. I don't think he's a reformist. But I also certainly wouldn't describe him as traditional.

^ This.

Theologically, we should be focusing on the idea of supporting and revering Life, which has ramifications on certain issues, but isn't the drive of supporting and revering Life. Theologically, anyone can do good, but we believe that you have to accept salvation to receive salvation (although only God truly knows that one; the Church won't even declare anymore that Judas went to Hell).

I like that Pope Francis is trying to refocus us. I hope whatever stance he takes takes off sooner than John Paul II's honestly. Or that it's less dense than John Paul II's so it's at least better understood.

Also of relevance: http://theweek.com/article/index/250...d-pope-francis

[Hyena Dandy]

Late Edit.

*Francis, not Benedict.

[Barracuda]

The people who felt that way are going to love this further comment by the Pope: good deeds, not belief in Christ, are the basis for a person's salvation.

That is not what the Bible says. Yes, it does say in James Chapter 2 that faith without works is dead. However, it also clearly says that likewise, works that are not accompanied by faith are also dead.