Most women who consume their placenta have it dried and encapsulated; I know women who have done that, but I don’t know anyone who has consumed it in any other way. Not to say that no one ever does that, but I think it’s very rare.
They went deep into the weeds right at the end of the episode. Like, farther than that.
With regard to whether it is cannibalism, it's something produced by a person's own body and therefore I think the rules should be the same as "what are you permitted by polite society to do with snot" and one could then reason about the matter on a secure footing and some of the things discussed that were farther into the weeds would simply not happen.
A question was raised (hypothetically, perhaps) in the podcast about the extremely unlikely scenario that Pope Francis answers the yes/no dubia in a heretical way and what would be the result. In that situation would a possible result be the calling of an ecumenical council to refute and depose him and set forth clear doctrine? Is that, based on the clear problems senior Cardinals and bishops have with this pontificate, and the mass confusion in the Church, clergy and laity alike, in regard to Her teachings on moral and doctrinal issues, already necessary? An ecumenical council, called by consent of the bishops alone, would be the actual clear expression of the "sensus fidei" and have the real power and authority to set forth what is and isn't universal Church teaching. I mean, that's what ecumenical councils have always done in times of mass confusion and heresy (Arianism, Nestorianism, Protestantism). Just a thought.
Good to know. But that is only a small part of the idea. Given the dubia, Cardinal Zen's letter, the diocese and entire bishop conferences in rebellion from Church teaching, with tacit papal approval or not, all of which you highlighted in your discussion, does not the college of bishops have an obligation to make a clear statement of church teaching that cannot be refuted? And how better, given the obstructionism coming from the Curia, than with a council where the entire Church can, "have it out," and at the end lay down clear statements of faith, in a setting where God the Holy Ghost is clearly calling the shots, based on all the, "will of the Spirit," language we've had to hear about the Second Vatican Council. No favoritism of Synodal invites, no hypocritical media blackouts, but the Church in public, declaring her truth. If things get messy... GOOD, the vast majority of orthodox bishops will finally have a forum to crush the naysayers coddled by Pope Francis once and for all with faith and reason like the heroes of past councils. So perhaps not actually tipping him out of the Chair of St Peter but not giving Pope Francis any more ambiguous leash to run on and stopping the downward slope his pontificate has created in the Church with its confusion and tepidness. Btw, thanks for responding JD.
An ecumenical council does not have the capacity to judge a pope, nor does the college of bishops, only the Pope can judge a pope (a current pope can judge a past pope), see Chapter 3 Section 8 of Pastor aeternus:
"8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff."
Travis is turning 35, which is technically middle-aged.
Most women who consume their placenta have it dried and encapsulated; I know women who have done that, but I don’t know anyone who has consumed it in any other way. Not to say that no one ever does that, but I think it’s very rare.
I have not listened to the episode yet and this comment is concerning.
They went deep into the weeds right at the end of the episode. Like, farther than that.
With regard to whether it is cannibalism, it's something produced by a person's own body and therefore I think the rules should be the same as "what are you permitted by polite society to do with snot" and one could then reason about the matter on a secure footing and some of the things discussed that were farther into the weeds would simply not happen.
Happy freaking birthday, Travis!
A question was raised (hypothetically, perhaps) in the podcast about the extremely unlikely scenario that Pope Francis answers the yes/no dubia in a heretical way and what would be the result. In that situation would a possible result be the calling of an ecumenical council to refute and depose him and set forth clear doctrine? Is that, based on the clear problems senior Cardinals and bishops have with this pontificate, and the mass confusion in the Church, clergy and laity alike, in regard to Her teachings on moral and doctrinal issues, already necessary? An ecumenical council, called by consent of the bishops alone, would be the actual clear expression of the "sensus fidei" and have the real power and authority to set forth what is and isn't universal Church teaching. I mean, that's what ecumenical councils have always done in times of mass confusion and heresy (Arianism, Nestorianism, Protestantism). Just a thought.
The Church teaches that an ecumenical council does not have the authority to depose a pope. So that makes things complicated.
Good to know. But that is only a small part of the idea. Given the dubia, Cardinal Zen's letter, the diocese and entire bishop conferences in rebellion from Church teaching, with tacit papal approval or not, all of which you highlighted in your discussion, does not the college of bishops have an obligation to make a clear statement of church teaching that cannot be refuted? And how better, given the obstructionism coming from the Curia, than with a council where the entire Church can, "have it out," and at the end lay down clear statements of faith, in a setting where God the Holy Ghost is clearly calling the shots, based on all the, "will of the Spirit," language we've had to hear about the Second Vatican Council. No favoritism of Synodal invites, no hypocritical media blackouts, but the Church in public, declaring her truth. If things get messy... GOOD, the vast majority of orthodox bishops will finally have a forum to crush the naysayers coddled by Pope Francis once and for all with faith and reason like the heroes of past councils. So perhaps not actually tipping him out of the Chair of St Peter but not giving Pope Francis any more ambiguous leash to run on and stopping the downward slope his pontificate has created in the Church with its confusion and tepidness. Btw, thanks for responding JD.
An ecumenical council does not have the capacity to judge a pope, nor does the college of bishops, only the Pope can judge a pope (a current pope can judge a past pope), see Chapter 3 Section 8 of Pastor aeternus:
"8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff."