Posted on 05/06/2014 6:00:33 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well they can’t very well resist someone else’s Pope.
Interesting article in that it creates a number of arguments that are in opposition to much of the Catholic teachings. Foundational to this article is the concept that a Catholic could hold a theological opinion that differs from the Pope. In addition, that the Catholic would be motivated by their moral code to then resist or oppose the Pope. This would be a direct opposition to the belief that the Church has primary authority and would presuppose that the individual has the moral obligation to judge the morality of the current ecclesiastical teachings.
I would ask a challenge question in response. If one is to oppose the Pope, then where would they go to seek guidance of their moral code? I therefore postulate that the scriptures would be the primary means of guidance, in that anything taught by the Pope would have to align with scripture in order to be accepted as “right”. IOW, prima scriptura (scripture is the first and foremost authority)
Slippery slope on both sides here. Too bad the author did not admit his biases. For all its faults (and I believe they are many) the Catholic Church still provides a bastion of sanity and spirituality for a billion people. I have little respect for those who would seek to undermine that foundation - just as I would reject those who would pervert it from within.
We live in difficult times. More patience, prayer, study and contemplation is needed, and less reactionary efforts, if peace is to be maintained.
Not to say that corrections shouldn’t be made where necessary. But humility on both sides, as well as strict honesty, is crucial.
Ping... Lots to think about here. Put me in mind of several of our recent conversations, including the one about your congregant whose face is wetted with tears due to her unresolved divorce — that issue is referenced in this article.
The current Pope may be a little out of line and think of himself as JPII did - a rock star - which was of little help to the Church until Cdl Ratzinger (BXVI) took over the theological part of the reign of JPII.
Pope Francis has been good on many things, vague and easily misinterpreted on others, and probably reluctant to come across as a “heavy” and state the Church’s position on yet others. I think he’s quite orthodox, but he’s just a 1980’s kind of guy, unfortunately.
Oddly enough, BXVI, who was older than Francis, came across as much younger and more attuned to modern realities, IMHO. But not everybody would see it this way, and that’s why the Holy Spirit intervenes. What we have is what we’ve got.
Interesting article in that it creates a number of arguments that are in opposition to much of the Catholic teachings. Foundational to this article is the concept that a Catholic could hold a theological opinion that differs from the Pope.
Sorry, but it is most certainly not "in opposition to ... Catholic teaching" that a Catholic could hold a theologial opinion which differs from a pope. Only in cases where the Pope's opinion is, in fact, Catholic will this above hold true. But, if one should teach something less than orthodox, like say suggesting that atheism saves and that Catholics should encourage atheists to be more devoted in their atheism, then any real Catholic will certainly hold theological opinions which differ from his.
At its most extreme the Church has only ever held that a pope is infallible, i.e. totally free from any theological error, in very, very specific cases. Only twice since Vatican I has this ever undeniably happened, and yet how many "theological opinions" have all the popes since then had? Were they all perfectly orthodox throughout those times? We certainly have no authority to require us to believe that they were never wrong about theological ideas during those years, and it goes beyond good sense to suggest as much. To argue for that, as many seem to in defending every utterance of every pope, is to go far beyond what the Church teaches, and that means to leave orthodoxy. Popes can be wrong, and when they are we should disagree with them. If we don't then we are wrong too, and that is never a virtue.
The concept is Biblical: "But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Catholics are under no obligation to kiss Korans, put beachballs on altars or attend prayer gatherings with the Great Thumb, despite the fact that Popes have done these things. Only God is infallible; Popes are human and make mistakes.
---------------------------
"The scope of papal infallibility is the same as any other organ of infallibility of the Church (such as an ecumenical council): it is limited to doctrinal definitions or final definitive statements concerning faith or morals. Theologians distinguish between primary and secondary objects of infallibility. The primary object consists of the truths that have been formally revealed by God, being contained within the two sources of revelation, namely, Scripture and Tradition, and extends to both positive and negative decisions of a definitive nature. Positive decisions include such things as dogmatic decrees of a council, ex cathedra statements from a pope, and official creeds of the Church. Negative decisions consist of “the determination and rejection of such errors as are opposed to the teaching of Revelation”. (3) The secondary object of infallibility includes those matters which, although not formally revealed, are connected with and intimately related to the revealed deposit, such as theological conclusions (inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is revealed and the other verified by reason) and dogmatic facts (contingent historical facts). These are so closely related to revealed truths that they are said to be virtually contained within the revealed deposit. With varying degrees of certitude, theologians also list universal disciplines and the canonizations of saints within this category. Secondary objects “come within the purview of infallibility, not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation”."
http://thecatholicfaith.blogspot.com/2012/11/papal-infallibility-and-its-limitations.html
Not being Catholic myself, I will certainly admit that my perceptions may be in error. However, my perceptions are based on the following:
Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 25)
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly....
Catechism 882
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
Based on these (and other writings) it appears to me that Papal supremacy is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, that the pope, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire Christian Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. This would include the power of interpretation of scripture and dominion over canon law.
The point of my question is to call out that when Popes are wrong, what other than scripture, would a Catholic use to even measure that the Pope is wrong. This then goes to support prima scriptura.
To resist/oppose the edicts of the Pope is grounds for excommunication.
Dude.
This Pope sounds a lot like an open-borders Communist who does not respect the Church historical teachings and edicts on divorce.
Almost all his Bishops are pure dee Communists who want buses between Mexico and America, not a wall.
Why would any thinking man align with that?
Dude, this Pope is a Pope.
To Catholics, that invokes a fair amount of that obedience thingy.
Just sayin'.
I was baptized and confirmed Catholic.
But I should be excommunicated.
I'll go away now.
??
So was I. And what I learned is that Catholicism is Catholicism. I was free to leave, and I did, because I could not give obedience to Catholic teachings in their entirety.
It's not a democracy. If you're not a Catholic, you're not a Catholic. Railing against it is pointless, as is trying to change it. There are plenty of Protestant churches that don't follow the Pope. Catholics follow the Pope. Catholics who want to change the church are political operatives, not Catholics.
Excommunication is unnecessary drama unless you intend to attack the Church, in which case it is used by the Church to defend itself from you. Just follow what you believe, and let others do the same. Face it, no matter what you choose to believe, over half the world will think you're going to hell for it. So it's courage of your convictions - or liberalism. I choose the former.
Based on these (and other writings) it appears to me that Papal supremacy is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
Absolutely, but please keep in mind that this is not the same as saying that every theological opinion he holds must be the one all people hold. He is as capable of being wrong as anyone, on a personal level, and that means that well informed and sincere Catholics can, and sometimes must, disagree with him. Supremacy is a juridical issue, and does not confer on the Pope personal impeccability and constant infallibility.
This would include the power of interpretation of scripture and dominion over canon law.
Yes, to a point. But, a pope cannot contradict the faith of the Church, which existed before him and will exist after him. He is only empowered by God to protect what he has received, not to change it or recreate it. If a Pope rejects the historic Catholic faith he has moved outside of the faith. The faith does not move along with him. He is just wrong in that instance.
The point of my question is to call out that when Popes are wrong, what other than scripture, would a Catholic use to even measure that the Pope is wrong. This then goes to support prima scriptura.
No, not at all. A Catholic must measure everything they see and hear, regardless of where it comes from, by comparing it to the Catholic faith, which naturally includes scripture as that is a crucial part of the Tradition of the Church. But, ultimately, we are called to look at the entire history of the Church and all that she has pronounced, not just the most recent comments. That is the problem with so much we see and hear today. It is all about looking at the Church as only being governed and informed by one Church Council, and the most recent popes. Not so at all. As a matter of fact, real Catholic faith rests in seeing and hearing all of these recent events and teachings as being limited and constrained by all that came before and has been believed from the beginning. Without that we would be no different than any reformed church which moves with the whims of their leaders. Popes are Catholic not because they define Catholicism, but because they are defined by it.
It is also interesting that the Pope took the name "Francis." St. Francis preached and practiced absolute poverty. However, let us note that at the time of his death, the Order he founded owned about 20% of the real estate in the wealthiest provinces of Northern Italy.
This is the continual dichotomy of the papacy. Christ's Vicar on Earth is also the head of a huge business enterprise. I am not horrified by this, but it does cause one to take the words of the Supreme Pontiff cum grano salis.
Every Christian denomination has the same problem: Spiritual vs Organizational. What the present Pope may be trying to do is identify his problems with the problems of every other churchman. Of course, he is a committed Christian Socialist. That is, he wants Christians to have all of the supposed benefits of Marxism, but in a nice Christian way. (See the works of Pius IX. He talked a socialist game, but ran some mighty tough jails!)
But theologically, the guy is somewhat more inclusive than your average Pope. After all, when the Muhammedans come to kill, tax, or convert us, they care not who is the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, The Anglican, The Calvinist, or the Lutheran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.