Ed Pentin
Posted on 01/24/2020 3:10:57 PM PST by ebb tide
ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - A distinguished Church historian who fled the tyranny of Fidel Castro is warning that Pope Francis is theologically "skating on the thinnest ice that anyone — not just living, but dead or watching — is."
Ed Pentin
"It is very rare" for a pope to be accused of unorthodoxy or perhaps even heresy, Carlos M. N. Eire, professor of History and Religious Studies at Yale University, asserts.
However, "things would get hairy" if a heretical pope invoked infallibility, Eire explains in an interview with Ed Pentin in the National Catholic Register.
Eire, who fled to the U.S. without his parents as one of 14,000 unaccompanied Cuban children airlifted by Operation Peter Pan, nevertheless assures Catholics that the crisis sparked by Francis "is nothing compared to previous crises or previous popes."
Indeed, "this is child's play," compared to the "70 years in Avignon — and then all the following years of the Great Schism of 1378 where you had not two, but at one point three rival popes — and the Church survived," he says.
"We don't know what's going to happen, but there's a promise that the Church is not going to disappear and that there's someone else in charge who is human and divine," the Catholic expert on the Protestant Reformation, declares.
However, he urges Catholics not to be complacent because "God works through people" and in the past "God has always worked through us to protect His Church."
Free clip from CHURCH MILITANT Premium
Faithful Catholics "will always be working hard and often meeting a tremendous resistance" and individuals might never see a problem facing the Church "resolved in their lifetime and during their lifetime," in fact, "they will have to put up with quite a bit."
But "eventually — and that's always the catch for us, because our lifespans are short," it will work to the good, the biographer of St. Teresa of Ávila, affirms.
Eire cites the example of the theologian St. Vincent Ferrer, who actually supported the Avignon pope for many years and then finally saw the light and changed sides. "But in the meantime, he made life miserable for people who accepted the Roman pope ... but that's just the way things work out."
For Catholics, genuine reform means only one thing: improving the Catholic Church while remaining faithful to it.Tweet
He explains:
Being a heretic and not speaking ex cathedra — while it's a problem, it's not the worst kind of problem. And actually, most Catholics don't know about the famous case that was invoked during the First Vatican Council, which was the case of Pope Honorius I, who in conversations with the patriarch of Constantinople expressed agreement with the heretical proposition about Christ — Monotheletism — the idea that the Christ had only one will, the divine will.
The heresy of Pope Honorius I was brought up during Vatican I as an example of popes not being infallible. But "Honorius was not speaking ex cathedra. That was a private conversation," Eire clarifies.
Such a heresy is very rare in Church history, even though there were disagreements about the Immaculate Conception before it was pronounced a dogma and people fell on both sides, including the popes, Eire adds, noting that Honorius' remains were dug up and thrown into the Tiber.
Being a heretic and not speaking ex cathedra — while it's a problem, it's not the worst kind of problem.Tweet
When asked if Pope Francis has impinged on doctrine in papal documents like Amoris Laetitia, Eire says whenever there's been "any kind of doctrinal conflict" or "logjam, it has come, it has gone, sometimes there's a fallout, but it's resolved," and "the Church has survived the crisis."
Woodcut depicting Protestant Reformation as revolution
In his course on the Catholic intellectual tradition, the professor gets students to realize that "crisis is constant," even though "the details of the crises might be different, and the intensity of the crises might vary."
As a believer and a historian, Eire says his students are wide-eyed when he tells them that "the Catholic Church is the longest-lasting continuous institution in human history" and "not even the pharaohs had this kind of institutional continuity."
In his opus magnum Reformations: The Early Modern World, 1450-1650, Eire resoundingly champions the thesis that true reformation can only take place within the Catholic Church.
Even though Protestants, he writes, "were not always of one mind and actually created a number of distinct competing reformations and churches, each of which claimed to be the genuine article, they nonetheless took to speaking of the Reformation in the singular rather than the plural and to assigning it capital letters."
But for "Catholics, genuine reform meant only one thing: improving the Catholic Church while remaining faithful to it. As Catholics saw it, Protestants were not reformers with a capital R, but rebels, and their so-called Reformation nothing more than a misguided revolt."
Ping
May we soon get to see if Popes can swim
Judaism is older than Roman Catholicism.
The Japanese Chrysanthemum Throne is older dating to 660 BC by some sources.
I certainly hope those students didn't pay much for this historian's class.
I come to the point to not believe a word you say.
You do seem to be willing however to believe a lot of false information.
Not surprised when the truth is presented before you it would not register.
The present institution of synagogue centred Rabbinic Judaism is very different insitutitionally than Judaism during the time of the divided monarchy.
The Church can make as good a claim to being a successor to the divided monarchy as an institution as Rabbinic Judaism can.
Pope Francis likely wouldn’t make such a claim, so it is good for you to be here to advocate his position.
Bro, you have a very different way of reading things.
The Chrysanthemum Throne (Japanese monarchy) dated from the first historically verified ruler, the Emperor Kinmei, who ruled in the mid- 6th century AD, making him the founder of a nearly 1500 year imperial system.
If you included legendary rulers, you'd have to start a lot earlier, with Emperor Jimma, who was, it is said, conceived and born of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu.
Jimma and all his goddess-born successors are considered non-historical, since there are no writings, no memorials, no graves, no monuments, no coins, nor any other human artifacts documenting their existence. Jimma, it is said, would go back to 600 BC, but that does not mean that the Chrysanthemum Throne (the actual imperial system with a verified historical line of succession) goes back that far.
Judaism as an ethnic identity and faith community is clearly a lot older than Christianity--- I myself would argue it is the longest-lasting, continuous culture--- but it is not a "continuous institution". It went through a number of different, discontinuous institutional forms. The United Monarchy (of Israel and Judah, the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon) lasted less than 150 years.
There are a lot of discontinuous phases, of which Patriarchal Judaism, Tribal/Judges Judaism, United Kingdom Judaism, Temple Judaism, Rabbinical-synagogue Judaism, Diaspora Judaism and modern-day Israel (b. 1948) are to be distinguished as having different rules, different forms of government, and a different focus.
Properly speaking, one splinter (Rabbinical/Synagogue Judaism) only came into its central institutional phase after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. What happened is that every other faction (the Essenes, the Sadducees, the Zealots, the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood, Herodian ruling faction) were destroyed, and the sole surviving faction (the Pharisees) gave rise to a new start, with the synagogue as the central institutional form, and Talmud scholarship as the new canon of rule and order.
I could go on about Hinduism, which is way older than that, but has the same problems: the earlier eras were either historically unverifiable, non-continuous, or non-institutional.
So with those historic definitions in mind, Roman Catholicism would be the world's longest-lasting continuous historical institution.
Sources: Mrs. Wiley's Class Notes; Wikipedia
Whew! I am tired after reading that very concise synopsis! Lots of info.
Neither of those was (or is) a continuing functional entity. "Judaism" disappeared when Rome destroyed Jerusalem. The "Chrysanthemum Throne" has been no more than a figurehead for centuries.
I didn’t have e4nough time to write a shorter account!
When it comes to Catholicism, from a certain angle you and Pope Francis seem to me like two peas in a pod.
I will admit that I am positive that no one else reached that conclusion prior to me.
It would be easier to make people see that you have the markings of a Jesuit, and if the Pope is nothing else, he is most definitely a Jesuit.
As to the idea of institution, I am happy to see that Mrs. Don-o has done a good job of articulating that position.
lol...
You're attempting to split hairs on this argument.
Roman Catholics sometimes remind me of the former Soviet official who had to boast of being the first or the biggest when they weren't. It's an argument from inferiority.
Perhaps if you attended his classes you would have gotten the historian's more precise definition of "continuous" and "institution."
Perhaps it should be explained better.
The Chrysanthemum Throne (Japanese monarchy) dated from the first historically verified ruler, the Emperor Kinmei, who ruled in the mid- 6th century AD, making him the founder of a nearly 1500 year imperial system.
There is debate about this with some historians dating this further back.
Jimma and all his goddess-born successors are considered non-historical, since there are no writings, no memorials, no graves, no monuments, no coins, nor any other human artifacts documenting their existence. Jimma, it is said, would go back to 600 BC, but that does not mean that the Chrysanthemum Throne (the actual imperial system with a verified historical line of succession) goes back that far.
Certainly seems the Japanese believe this.
I could go on about Hinduism, which is way older than that, but has the same problems: the earlier eras were either historically unverifiable, non-continuous, or non-institutional.
The Hindus will disagree with you.
Hinduism is the world's third largest religion. It is an Indian religion and dharma, or way of life,[note 1] widely practised in the Indian subcontinent and parts of Southeast Asia. Hinduism has been called the oldest religion in the world,[note 2] and some practitioners and scholars refer to it as Sanātana Dharma, "the eternal tradition", or the "eternal way", beyond human history.[4][5] Scholars regard Hinduism as a fusion[note 3] or synthesis[6][note 4] of various Indian cultures and traditions,[7][note 5] with diverse roots[8][note 6] and no founder.[9] This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300 CE,[10] after the end of the Vedic period (1500 to 500 BCE),[10][11] and flourished in the medieval period, with the decline of Buddhism in India.[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism
*****
So with those historic definitions in mind, Roman Catholicism would be the world's longest-lasting continuous historical institution.
So, with all those corrections, my original points stands.
Bro, I assure you.....Francis, Roman Catholicism and I are about as far apart on the issues as one can get.
*****
As to the idea of institution, I am happy to see that Mrs. Don-o has done a good job of articulating that position.
LOL....only if one redefines the terms to their favor as she did.
Let me stack the deck or change the definitions and I'll win everytime.
Debating with Roman Catholics is often akin to trying to nail jello to the wall.
I am not surprised.
No...I'm saying you're having to redefine the terms to your advantage.
It is disruptive and unpersuasive to jump into a dialogue and at that point claim the right to retroactively re-define key terms.
If Eire were to say, for instance,that for this discussion a patriarchal nomadic family with no fixed abode, a Temple priesthood, a hereditary monarchy and a constitutional secular-democratic state are regarded as different institutions, with different institutional histories, you're not in a position to throw out these distinctions and then claim everybody else is being unfair.
An honest historian would have been more forthright in his position. His tactic narrows the focus of history and presents a distorted view of events.
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.