John: the article sugggests not only an undoing of papal infallibility (and hence blowing the lid off of Pandora's box)and sobornost, further eroding the papal office. That being said, doe you see Bergie making himself less of a classical pope and more like an EO patriarch; if so, with him being an ecumenist, do you see him trying to reunite the RCC and EOC with him more as a primus inter pares and hence uncseating Green Bart?
My guess is that any suggested conversation is just going to further clarify the narrow scope of infallibility and give more wiggle room to "teachings" that do not meet "the requirements of infallibility."It has always made me go "hmm" to think of all of the scripture passages that are misunderstood by Catholics around the world, and the inability (or unwillingness) of the pope and magesterium to infallibly define the meaning for the flock.Infallibility isn't much good if it is never used to help anyone.
Heh, Kirk, what you're asking me here requires pure speculation on my part! Bergoglio is a pope who wants to decentralize the papacy, but he's doing it with something of an iron fist! He wants to make changes, yet to give the conservatives cover so they can say "no dogmas have changed". At some point, all that has to fall apart.
yet the problem is so much more acute now due to the centrality of the papacy in RC thought; his iron-fisted approach with a reluctant synod also contradicts his professed preference for conciliarity. On ewonders if he has a mapped-out agenda or is acting in an ad hoc manner.
Kirk, I think his method is deliberate, but the "content" is somewhat arbitrary. That is, "marriage" was a topic that was pressed on him by the fact that zillions of people were leaving RCism after a divorce, and now "infallibility" has been pressed upon him "quite by accident". That is, he wouldn't have started off talking "infallibility", but now that it's on the radar screen, he figures "why not?"
If I may jump in, the idea that Francis is a pope that if for conciliarity is nonsense. He is known to be one of the most authoritarian and autocratic Popes in recent memory who does not tolerate dissent from his agenda. Cardinals and bishops who speak out against him are quickly disciplined, scilenced and removed, just look at cardinal Burke. The remaining conservative bishops in the hierarchy are being marginalized by him and pushed more into a corner.
Vincent, I agree with you. The question would be, "to what end?" What is his vision? "A more merciful church?" Certainly one that's more liberal.
OK,then, what is meant by Bergie not wanting to be the sole spokesman for the church: meat puppets? conciliarity? He certainly rules with an iron fist, and it it clear that his statement contradicts his behavior, so what does he mean (if anything)?
I think he wants infallibly to leave the hierarchical structure of "the Church" in a complete disarray ... that is, he'll give up infallibility and "jurisdiction" before he turns out the lights -- and there will be no way to get those things back. That's the thing we need to watch for ... "jurisdiction".
If the pope rescinds papal infallibility, the burning question is whether the pope will fallibly or infallibly deny papal infallibility.
...and, of course, how could we tell?
Or what if he's later on labeled an antipope...
They may have some problems with that one because he was legally elected.