Posted on 10/26/2014 10:25:06 AM PDT by marshmallow
TO grasp why events this month in Rome — publicly feuding cardinals, documents floated and then disavowed — were so remarkable in the context of modern Catholic history, it helps to understand certain practical aspects of the doctrine of papal infallibility.
On paper, that doctrine seems to grant extraordinary power to the pope — since he cannot err, the First Vatican Council declared in 1870, when he “defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”
In practice, though, it places profound effective limits on his power.
Those limits are set, in part, by normal human modesty: “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly, but I shall never do that,” John XXIII is reported to have said. But they’re also set by the binding power of existing teaching, which a pope cannot reverse or contradict without proving his own office, well, fallible — effectively dynamiting the very claim to authority on which his decisions rest.
Not surprisingly, then, popes are usually quite careful. On the two modern occasions when a pontiff defined a doctrine of the faith, it was on a subject — the holiness of the Virgin Mary — that few devout Catholics consider controversial. In the last era of major church reform, the Second Vatican Council, the popes were not the intellectual protagonists, and the council’s debates — while vigorous — were steered toward a (pope-approved) consensus: The documents that seemed most like developments in doctrine, on religious liberty and Judaism, passed with less than a hundred dissenting votes out of more than 2,300 cast.
But something very different is happening under Pope Francis. In his public words and gestures, through the men he’s elevated and the debates he’s encouraged, this pope has repeatedly signaled a desire to rethink....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Rather, in an attempt to make the Church appear more "relevant", "new" and "pastoral", there appears to be a concerted effort underway to make the Church and Jesus himself no longer a sign of contradiction but a sign of compromise.
The liberal (progressive) bishops put forth their interim one sided report (relation) only because they felt they saw an opening to do this under the papacy of Francis. This would never have occurred under BXVI. The synod ended in a mess. No two words about and sowed global confusion. Francis’s freewheeling manner of discourse needs to be reined in.
What the NYTimes leaves out—naturally—is that God watches over His Church, the Bride of Christ, and that one way or another He will prevent a pope from violating the truth. Usually, it is a whisper in the ear, the quiet guidance of the Holy Spirit, objections from the Cardinals, a sudden onset of illness, or, if necessary, death. But in the end, there is no denying God in this basic way.
The religion editors of the NY Times can think they can, or a pope can, because their cause is politically correct, and anyway God is an old-fashioned superstition that is no longer relevant in our postmodern world. But they are wrong.
The Vatican has been leftist on fiscal issues; much govt money is steered to them for care of illegal immigrants and such. If calls to cut social spending grow they will lose much of their power. Thus they are now veering left on social issues to gain more political favor on the left in order to stave off cuts to their programs.
Would that be pronounced "BIX-vee," or would that be considered unmannerly?
Clever
Yet Leo X a 'civilian' five days before he was crowned Pope, granted indulgences to those who 'contributed' to St Peter's Basilica's construction. No violation of the 'truth' there?
Was this a doctrinal teaching or a sin?
While there is some truth to the abuse of indulgences during this era, acts of charity can certainly be worthy of an indulgence.
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1)
NYT?
You tell me, remission of temporal punishment from authorities or from God? Does the Catholic Church bind God?
acts of charity can certainly be worthy of an indulgence.
Where is the charity, when something is expected in return? Pay, get an indulgence. Sounds like selling.
Pretty sure God said to the early leaders of the church in person "What you loosen shall be loosed, what you hold bound, shall be held bound."
But the whole question of the "selling" of indulgences has nothing to do with Papal infallibility, since it guarantees, not that Popes won't do dumb things, nor that they won't sin, but only that they won't definitively command the church to believe heresy as truth.
I know He did, forgiveness and not offering forgiveness of sin. There are earthly consequences of sin, not controlled by man. I wasn't discussing 'papal infallibility' just the idea that an indulgence removes temporal consequences of sin, which is in God's control.
Not sure what your issue/question is then.
The sale of indulgences was a sin. However, indulgences in and of themselves were/are part of Catholic teaching.
That's quite a contradiction there...If the guilt has been forgiven there can be no punishment...Otherwise the punishment is the payment for the guilt...
If I hit a baseball through your kitchen window and say "sorry" and you say "I forgive you" it means there's no hard feelings and you won't hold it against me but I still have to repair the damage I've done and buy you a new window.
Saying "I forgive you", doesn't mean I don't have to clean up my mess and make it right.
' Thank you, does this then constitute a violation of the truth as expressed in post #3 re:?
He will prevent a pope from violating the truth.
If the sale of indulgences was a sin, would not the one promoting it be in a position of contravening or violating the truth. I appreciate your candor.
I don’t think that the poster who used the phrase “violating the truth” meant it the way you seem to have taken it (and I would ping that person but I don’t recall who it was). He was referring to a pope changing doctrine. The actual doctrine of indulgences was not changed. It was abused however.
Nope...I still wouldn't hold it against as long as you repaired the window...I wouldn't need to forgive you if you repaired the damage...Just as Jesus wouldn't have needed to die for us if we could have atoned for ourselves...
#1472 Sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.
#1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."
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.