Infallibility has its limits (Mario whines about Benedict XVI)

NY Daily News ^ | 4/28/05 | Mario Cuomo

[pissant]

Many of us who cling desperately to our Catholic Church for instruction, inspiration and support prayed that a new Pope would help heal the church's serious wounds and reconnect it more surely to modern realities. Instead, the cardinals have chosen a good and holy man who, we are told, rather than reform the status quo will reaffirm it more insistently than before.

The current challenge of the church is twofold.

First, it must continue proclaiming the unalterable and unchallengeable truths of Christ, instructing us to love one another as we love ourselves and to collaborate in improving the world that God created but did not complete.

That includes the obligation to be generous to those in need, and to avoid unjust and unnecessary wars that kill innocent people.

To deny these eternal and unchangeable truths of Christ is to renounce the Catholic Church.

The second challenge is to reassess the alterable rules made for us by the male descendants of Peter who were and are humanly frail, as he was, and to readjust those rules to better serve the purpose of helping modern Catholics to live fuller and holier lives in this ever-changing world. This would include, among other things, reconsidering celibacy, women's role in the church and other contentious man-made church policies.

The church can do this without abandoning its fundamental commitment to the Gospel of Jesus, and has in fact done it in the past in changing its position on slavery, usury, salvation outside the church and divorce.

The church is extremely hesitant about using or even defining the idea that it is "infallible" in its teaching. None of the currently contentious issues has been so designated. In fact, the church asserts its infallibility only under strictly defined limits, and it has happened very few times in church history. The only formal exercise of papal infallibility in modern times was by Pope Pius XII and dealt with Mary, the mother of Christ.

Despite this history, our new Pope's record and the opinion among Vatican watchers offer little hope for meaningful changes or even for a clear admission that its man-made rules are indeed alterable by the church that made and enforces them.

But then, ours is a church that continues to entertain the possibility of miracles, big and small and is capable of startling and invigorating changes of course like the ascendance of John XXIII, who gave us the Second Vatican Council that brought Catholicism a bright new enlightenment in the 1960s.

Hope springs eternal.

[BlackElk]

Alas, they don't let us burn 'em at the stake any more. That does not mean that we cannot make a little list of those "Catholics" who deserve burning. I'll start off. I will miss many. Please supplement with additional names of "Catholic" pro-aborts.

US SENATE:

Patrick Leahy, Susan Collins, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, John Reed, Christopher Dodd, Barbara Mikulski, Patricia Murray, Richard Durbin, Thomas Harkin, Mary Landrieu, Kenneth Salazar, Lisa Murkowski

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

Rosa DeLauro, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Menendez, Frank Pallone, Joseph Crowley

GOVERNORS/FORMER GOVERNORS:

John Rowland, Mario Cuomo, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Richardson (?), Sebelius (KS)

OTHERS:

Mayor Gavin Newsome (SF), the entire staff of the National antiCatholic Reporter, Thomas Daschle, James Carroll, Fr. Richard McBrien (who wrote Cuomo's Notre Dame pro-abort speech), Garry Wills

[marylandrepub1]

I lived in NY when he was elected in 80s. I have seen him give this speech on MSNBC. Let me summarize:

1) Man-made rules: Anything Gov disagrees with: rules against Gay activity, against abortion, against women priests, promoting childbearing within marriage

2) Eternal and unchangeable truths of Christ : No War, even in defense, no death penalty, guaranteed welfare for unmarried mothers

[lnbchip]

Papal Infallibility

by Jeffrey Mirus, PhD

(This is the response of Jeffrey Mirus to a question about papal infallibility addressed to him in the "Ask the Experts" section of EWTN Online Services. This is a far more intelligent explanation than any given by Mario Cuomo.)

While the the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility in 1870, you must understand that the date on which a doctrine is officially defined is not the date on which it becomes true. Rather, it was always true. It's just that different aspects of the Faith are challenged at different periods of history, and when a challenge occurs or a serious concern or question arises, then the Church will settle the difficulty by formally stating what the truth of the matter is -- to end the confusion. So papal infallibility has always been true, and, moreover, was accepted and practiced from the earliest times.

The evidence that papal infallibility is part of the Christian Faith comes from three sources.

SCRIPTURE

First, Scripture. Such passages as: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven", and "Do you love me, Peter. Feed my sheep", and "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren", have always been taken to refer to a special role for Peter in the establishment of the Church, and special divine protection for Peter in the exercise of his authority.

HISTORY

Second, History. From the earliest times we see the bishops of Rome acting as if they had special authority in succession from St. Peter, and we also see the rest of the Church accepting their authority as if they knew it was genuine. Thus Pope Clement wrote to settle a problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st century. During the first few hundred years of Church history, moreover, many who were accused of heresy appealed from every corner of the known world to Rome for vindication or condemnation. The Fathers too repeatedly attest to the authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said in response to the Papal definition of the two natures of Christ, "Peter has spoken through Leo" -- and accepted it unhesitatingly.

LOGIC

Third, Logic. There are only two covenants, the old and the new. But the first Christians under the New Covenant had a living and infallible guide to the truth in Christ himself. Surely the lack of such a guide in future times would constitute yet another covenant -- the difference would be so radical. The argument runs as follows:

It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith -- indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed "my" (Christ's) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ's absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master's return is very much to the point.

Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. As I indicated above, this authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ's will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).

INFALLIBILITY ITSELF

Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation -- that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ's own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.

Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error -- else the powers of hell would prevail.

This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.

Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ's teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible -- the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable".

 

[johnb838]

Not in USA. The numbers on the rolls may have gone up, but the attendance is less than half what it was, and when the dioceses started paying out 10s of millions of the parishioners hard earned tithes to victims of the pedophile "priests" everything went to hell in a bucket. So that's what I'm saying. The numbers were so much larger that the RCIA could lose 10-15 ECUSAs and still have 80 million members. But they still lost all those members. And don't kid yourself, they weren't all liberals. Just cuz you don't remember the Archbishops with one hand out for your money and paying off lawyers and victims with the other, and reassigning and stonewalling all the while, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I didn't take offense. I love the Roman Catholic Church, and I loved John Paul and I loved Paul before him and I love Benedict now, which I really didn't expect to do.

There are still some things I prefer about the EC, one of which is I don't have to place myself under obedience to these eminently fallible people who have been dumbed down to the point of irrespectability, the priests. To wit: I like having a vestry of my peers, and a rector we can fire if it becomes necessary.

[Gerish]

love ourselves and to collaborate in improving the world that God created but did not complete.

Was thinking the same thing. God created the world but didn't complete it and now its up to Mario and his kind to pick up where he thinks God left off? Okay Mario, I believe you should go back and start reading the Book of Genesis.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Read this: Infallibility

[lnbchip]

The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church

by Fr. William G. Most

By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16). Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible. This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25). It was precisely by the use of that authority that Vatican I was able to define that the Pope alone, when speaking as such and making things definitive, is also infallible. Of course this infallibility covers also teaching on what morality requires, for that is needed for salvation.

A "theologian" who would claim he needs to be able to ignore the Magisterium in order to find the truth is strangely perverse: the teaching of the Magisterium is the prime, God-given means of finding the truth. Nor could he claim academic freedom lets him contradict the Church. In any field of knowledge, academic freedom belongs only to a properly qualified professor teaching in his own field. But one is not properly qualified if he does not use the correct method of working in his field, e.g., a science professor who would want to go back to medieval methods would be laughed off campus, not protected. Now in Catholic theology , the correct method is to study the sources of revelation, but then give the final word to the Church. He who does not follow that method is not a qualified Catholic theologian. Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."

---

Taken from The Basic Catholic Catechism
PART FIVE: The Apostles' Creed IX - XII
Ninth Article: "The Holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints"

By William G. Most. (c) Copyright 1990 by William G. Most.

[johnb838]

Giuliani.

[Inwoodian]

Mario probably is aware that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals his edict is considered infallible. And Mario thinks these are proclamations made by fallible men. He must have missed Catechism Class the day the students were told that such infallible statements of doctrine are inspired by the Holy Spirit, a Person of the true God.
The Church will never change on such matters.

[pissant]

Hey, I follow these things closely. Despite the US Catholic Church's problems, the numbers grew by 10% in the US. Some of the big urban parishes have lost people. Lotsa the suburban parishes are bursting at the seems. See the trend?

I do not know a single conservative catholic who has left in the last 10 years. But lotsa liberals have. There are many crummy priests, but there are many more excellent ones. In my hometown, I've gone to most of the dozen or so parishes. All but a couple have good to very good pastors.

[conservonator]

This would include, among other things, reconsidering celibacy, women's role in the church and other contentious man-made church policies.

Let me guess, the "other things" include such "man-made church policies" as abortion, contraception and homosexual unions right Mario?

Mario, your rock called, it's lonely and doesn't want you messing with the Rock.

[conservonator]

Gotta love "ducky"!

[pissant]

He was a worthless governor!

[ClaireSolt]

There is no doctrine of catholic church infallibility. There is a doctrine of papal infallibility which states that the Pope is infallible when he claims to be and is peaking on matters of faith and morals. It is a very recent claim that a pope made when he was besieged by French and Italian armies which took away papal lands in the late 19th century. It is not a perogative that other popes have claimed.

[ClaireSolt]

Doesan't Cuomo have his onesies and twosies mixed up? First love God with all your heart and mind and second love yur neighbor as yourself.

[karnage]

Nobody else has said it yet, so I will:

Who is Mario Cuomo?

[A.A. Cunningham]

One of the lessons from last year that too many American Catholics still don’t want to face is that it’s OK to be Catholic in today’s public square as long as we don’t try to live our beliefs too seriously; as long as we’re suitably embarrassed by all those “primitive” Catholic teachings; as long as we shut up about abortion and other sensitive moral issues and allow ourselves to be tutored in the ways of “polite” secular culture by experts who have little or no respect for the Christian faith that guides our lives.

The reason Pope Benedict XVI will get no media honeymoon is simple. It’s the same reason he instantly won the hearts of committed Catholics, worried the lukewarm and angered the proud and disaffected. He actually believes that what Jesus Christ and His Church teach is true, and that the soul of the world depends on the Church’s faithful witness.

As one columnist bitterly observed, “the cafeteria is now closed.” Of course, for believers, it was never open.

[marylandrepub1]

But Cuomo’s self (phony) pious-ness is so unbelievable you have to see it yourself. I remember him on one of Phil Donahue’s last shows in 2002 when Cuomo said. “we are losing the argument because we write in quill pens and they write with crayons” then a year later accused Bush of going AWOL, on TV. Only Cuomo loves the poor, the rest of us are ‘mean spirited’, as he drove all the jobs out of NY as governor, and poor on poor crime reached record highs.

[ninenot]

First off--who the hell CARES what this has-been 'thinks' (if that's the operative verb)?

[cubreporter]

That includes the obligation to be generous to those in need, and to avoid unjust and unnecessary wars that kill innocent people.




Or unjust and unnecessary abortions that kill innocent, unborn babies.