Through the Church's gift of infallibility, the Holy Spirit prevents Pope Francis' erroneous opinions from becoming doctrines of the Church.
Posted on 11/06/2015 1:23:48 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Alabama can be an interesting place to be Catholic.
On the one hand, it's challenging to live within an overwhelmingly evangelical community that generally believes our faith isn't authentic Christianity. "If he's a Christian, it's despite being Catholic," is how I've heard it said.
On the other, we have great opportunities to learn from the thriving protestant communities that dominate the Bible Belt – their knowledge of scripture, how they make church fun for families, and how they build thriving, mission-minded congregations.
But perhaps the greatest challenge, and opportunity, is when we're questioned by a knowledgeable and well-meaning protestant. While there are many theological differences to discuss – why we believe that Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist, for instance – one of their favorite topics always seems to be the pope.
"Why do you think the pope is such a great guy?" someone might ask. Well, who said I did? Some popes are great while others aren't. I'm sure you've had great pastors and not-so-great pastors, as well.
"Why does the pope wear that funny hat?" I don't know, it probably has something to do with customs and traditions. Why does your choir wear robes?
"Why do you think the pope is infallible?" I don't. He's capable of making mistakes like the rest of us. But I do believe, as the fathers of the First Vatican Council wrote, that when the pope "defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses ... that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy."
Plainly put, we believe the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from error when he defines a doctrine, which is an exceedingly rare occurrence by the way (most theologians agree that it last happened in the 19th century, and even then it only affirmed an already centuries-old teaching).
Still, infallibility is when the wheels come off most discussions. In fairness, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a non-Catholic to be suspicious of the notion of papal infallibility. The term alone conjures fears of hubris, abuse and excess.
If popes don't like a doctrine, then they can simply change it, right?
Wrong.
Putting aside the fact that Catholic doctrine cannot change – once true, always true – I view papal infallibility as a great blessing that actually prevents popes from changing doctrine, not a means for them to do so. Being preserved from error doesn't necessarily take the form of action, in giving the pope free reign to change things. It most often takes the form of an unexplainable restraint from action, in something that keeps the pope from making any change at all, even when he wants to.
I believe we saw this happen last month in Rome.
Many church leaders believe Pope Francis wanted to use the Synod on the Family as a catalyst to change our church's teaching on the indissolubility of a valid marriage (in other words, we don't believe in divorce ... ever). He demoted dissenting cardinals, stacked the forum with allies, and changed the meeting's rules to allow an easier path for the majority's view to be adopted in the final document.
But it wasn't. Their efforts were halted, the teaching on indissolubility remained, and a clearly frustrated pope delivered a speech that many viewed as a harsh criticism of conservatives who hold fast to doctrine.
That's an amazing result. Consider this analogy for perspective: if the president of one of the mainstream protestant denominations called a general assembly with an aim to change something, invited a majority of pastors to the forum who agreed with his view, and had the support of a vast majority of the denomination's members (polls show most Catholics want to change the church's teaching on divorce), one would expect the change to occur without much fuss.
But there was a great deal of fuss in Rome, and nothing actually changed from what has been taught for 2,000 years. Sure, some bishops walked away thinking they had a wink and a nod to think differently, but we've always had those who dissented from church teaching.
In the end, the pope's failure to change doctrine strengthened my belief in the Catholic Church and in the divine shepherd who keeps His sheep, and His church, from going astray.
That's what I keep saying.
Funny (but true) YouTube cartoon, under 2 minutes, on Papal Infallibility, by John Zmirak. Click, you'll laugh.
The Vicar of Christ’s recent failure strengthens her faith?
Catholic ping!
Through the Church's gift of infallibility, the Holy Spirit prevents Pope Francis' erroneous opinions from becoming doctrines of the Church.
bkmk
Or ‘Lost in Alabama’
“...how they make church fun for families, and how they build thriving, mission-minded congregations.”
This guy needs to learn about Catholicism.
In Catholicism we celebrate the Eucharist at Mass. We can struggle to tune out the 1970s variety show they’ve made of it or tune it all out either way getting the Body of Christ.
Then we can go have fun.
Building mission minded congregations? What is that? We evangelize the way St Francis told us to. Preaching the Gospel, and if necessary, using words. We simply do not do it capitalistically. We live it for whomever is around
We don’t go out and round up people so they’ll get out Church’s numbers up
Those old churches in France. If they’re empty, even if the Muslims take them, Catholicism does not falter. What’s to learn from Protestants? Either we live as Jesus taught us and attract people to Him so He can have them in their eternal life or we answer to him when we miss the opportunity.
J Pepper would really have to point to where in the gospel, Jesus said to make church fun
I don’t think he was making a huge point about the “fun”. They guy and is family are still Catholic. Maybe his church doesn’t have much of a youth group, and the neighboring Evangelicals have one that’s hugely active and attractive. It wouldn’t do the Catholics any harm to learn how to do that. Without, of course, sacrificing the real essentials of the Faith.
We never had Protestant style youth groups. why is copying Protestants so important?
Where in the gospel does Jesus say there have to be youth groups?
The Protestants reject what we believe. Let em
Why do kids have to have a group to find Jesus an Mary? We didn’t. Our forefathers didn’t have youth groups and managed to bring Catholicism from St Patrick to tge 70s. When Protestantism took over
Now we have to be entertained
It’s idiotic
I dispute the contention that Pope Francis wanted or attempted to change doctrine.
I don’t think either I or the author called it all that important. Youth groups are in the ‘take it or leave it” category. For some kids, though, the Christian-peer-influence is a big plus in helping fend off the secular-peer-influence, which is becoming more and more toxic to Christianity.
I go to a church which has very active youth groups. They go to middle school, high school camps and on mission trips. Many youth have been led to Christ through these events. I went to some when I was involved in the college age group. They were an inspiration to the adults who attended. The Sunday night after these camps, they lead the service. Believe me when I say, some of these youth knew the Bible better than some adults. Don’t y’all want the youth to become Christians? Your attitude sure seems to be very critical of that and I do not understand that. The youth have their own Wednesday night services led by the youth minister and the youth. It is wonderful. Y’all should try it!
“...most theologians agree that it last happened in the 19th century, and even then it only affirmed an already centuries-old teaching).”
Dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, November 1, 1950. Sort of destroys whatever minimal credibility this author may have had.
Recently Archbishop Athanasius Schneider and a couple other good guys put out a superb booklet, The Preferential Option for the Family.. Quote: "Just as a body cannot be separated from the soul that informs it, so also pastoral practice cannot be completely separated from the moral doctrine that justifies it. Therefore, a change in the pastoral policy can easily result, at least implicitly, in a change of the implied doctrine."
Robert Cardinal Sarah--- I love this --- "The idea of placing the Magisterium in a beautiful reliquary detaching it from pastoral practice that could evolve according to circumstance, fashions and passions is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology."
I think there's a very legitimate alarm that Pope-Francis-approved changes is pastoral approach could, in practice, negate doctrine.
Even now, the National Bishops' Conferences in Germany, Austria, and elsewhere are allowing the reception of Holy Communion for people in open, persistent, objectively adulterous unions, and getting no discipline or pushback whatsoever from Pope Francis or anybody else. (Except the African Bishops. And didn't Kasper tell them to butt out?)
Tagline.
:o/
:)
Everything depends on how you define everything, doesn't it? However, my original statement stands unassailed, unless by "changing doctrine" one means not changing doctrine but something else, perhaps "having an influence on implementation," or ... what you will, since the question is, "Who's to be master, words or us?"
Read what I wrote to answer the question. Tge author says Catholics need to learn from Protestants
The Eucharist and Christ aren’t enough?
Silly
You don’t think he was making a big deal about it being fun.
W hat would that have to do with the point I’m making. Nothing
This is a collection of uncharitable assumptions.
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.