Posted on 11/28/2016 4:06:50 PM PST by BlessedBeGod
In the wake of the confused and confusing elements in Chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia and in light of the Five Dubia submitted by the Four Cardinals, and in view of the remarks made by Card. Burke about what would possibly need to be done were no responses given or further confused and confusing points be issued, some people have wondered what it takes to “correct” a Pope, or if “correction” is even possible.
How would such a thing happen, given the fact that the Pope has as his superior only Christ, whose vicar he is, and … the People of God, whose servant he is.
I saw a really interesting piece at EWTN (UK) about correction of an erring Pope. It gets into an historical incident. I hadn’t read about this for quite some time, so it was interesting to refresh my memory. Let’s see some of it with my emphases and comments:
[…]
The Church corrected the serious error of Pope John XXII [An “Avignon Pope” who died in 1334.]
Pope John XXII’s serious error was in the area of eschatology, not moral theology, [Amoris laetitia concerns, mainly, moral theology] and in particular he proposed his own idea that after death the righteous soul did not immediately enjoy the reward of the Beatific Vision. Instead, he favoured the novel idea that the soul waited until the resurrection of the body, and the final, universal judgement to enjoy the beatific vision of God. [Novel ideas are, generally, bad ideas.] Pope John XXII’s speculative proposition is against the established and continuous teaching of the Church, as now expressed in the Catechism of the Church as follows:
Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven — through a purification or immediately, or immediate and everlasting damnation. (CCC 1022).
Eight years into his pontificate, disturbing rumours began to circulate in Europe’s universities and throughout the Church that Pope John XXII was ‘favouring’ a serious error contrary to the teaching of the Church. By November 1331 these rumours transformed into alarm following John XXII’s delivery of three homilies proposing that his new teaching was supported by a ‘reading’ of Scripture and the Church Fathers. [It’s one thing to have ideas. It’s another thing to diffuse them.] The Catholic world outside of the papal court of Avignon was profoundly and deeply disturbed by the news that the Head of the Church was proposing a teaching contrary to magisterial teaching. However, the pope’s novel ideas found favour among some within his court who sought the Holy Father’s patronage and preferment. [Say it ain’t so! Surely no one in a Pope’s close circle would ever seek to curry favor by nodding and bobbing over everything. Such ambition would be wicked.]
Faced with growing protests from clergy throughout Christendom Pope John XXII sought to defend his innovation in two ways: he claimed it was not his own teaching but the teaching of scripture and the Church Fathers and he asserted that it was only his private opinion as a theologian, and not taught in his role as Head of the Church. The pope further claimed that the question was open to discussion and every clergyman was free to accept or reject whichever side of the controversy he judged as true.
However, the Holy Father’s actions belied his words. Pope John XXII’s treatment of supporters and opponents showed his preference for those who upheld his “new” teaching. Supporters received honours and preferment, while those who opposed Pope John XXII, either informally or formally, experienced papal disfavour, and even punishment. He also sought to disseminate his erroneous teaching by commanding that copies of his sermons were distributed to his supporters. [So, those who resisted, were punished and John continued to diffuse his idea.]
But the more Pope John XXII and his supporters sought to promulgate his error, the greater the uproar and resistance from the Church beyond the papal court. [NB: This was loooong before the age of social communication, whihc makes information now rocket around the globe to a far larger percentage of the population that would have been involved in the 14 c. That said, in the ancient Church, there were riots when people heard a version of Scripture that was unfamiliar. People argued about homoousios and homoiousios in the market places and streets. Maybe a larger percentage were involved because they took their faith seriously.] King Phillip VI of France and the Dominican faculty of the university of Paris were Pope John XXII’s most implacable opponents, despite the Holy Father’s personal rebukes and imposition of ‘yes’ men. As Fr. Victor Francis O’Daniel, O.P. put it, “Neither fear of feeling the weight of papal displeasure, nor hope of reward, had any influence… when there was question of an error against Catholic faith.”
Determined to meet the challenge of Pope John XXII’s error head on, King Philip VI called a meeting of the theological faculty of the University of Paris. [The “state” was involved, because these matters had civic repercussions.] On December 19, 1333 a commission of 23 masters of theology assembled under the presidency of the Dominican patriarch of Jerusalem, Peter de la Palud, and in the presence of the kings of France and Navarre, and many bishops, priests, and lay faithful. They unanimously declared their firm belief in established and continual Catholic teaching on the righteous soul’s immediate reward of the Beatific Vision on death and individual judgement. [They also diplomatically stated their submission to the Roman Pontiff and they declared that John had not formally taught the error which he had been diffusing.]
The commission drew up a profession of faith which they signed, and submitted to Pope John XXII. The profession of faith was accompanied with a letter to the Holy Father which was polite and respectful, but also expressed clearly and firmly the result of their deliberations. They reminded Pope John XXII that he had declared that he had spoken as an individual theologian, not as Head of the Church infallibly defining a doctrine. They also expressed the hope that the Holy Father would give his apostolic sanction to their decision.
Following his receipt of the signed profession of faith and letter Pope John XXII immediately convoked a consistory in January 1334 during which he displayed openness and tolerance towards those who opposed him, and repeated his assertion that he had never intended to dogmatically settle the question, but rather that he had sought an open discussion. [Thus saving everyone’s face.] He also sent letters admonishing those supporters that the King of France judged had overstepped the mark in their zeal to promote his “new” teaching, and he released from prison those opponents investigated by the Inquisition. [Today, there are all sorts of “prisons”. Some even have bars on the doors.] Later in the year, sensing his death was imminent, John XXII retracted the serious error he had preached or had caused others to preach or teach that was not “in perfect conformity with Catholic belief.”
Blessed Cardinal Schuster OSB (Cardinal and Archbishop of Milan, d. 1954) wrote the following assessment of this formal correction of the serious error of Pope John XXII:
John XXII has the gravest responsibilities before the tribunal of history… since he offered the entire Church, the humiliating spectacle of the princes, clergy and universities steering the Pontiff onto the right path of Catholic theological tradition, and placing him in the very difficult situation of having to contradict himself.
It took a good deal of humility for John XXII to check and adjust his course.
What is especially of note is how human nature doesn’t change.
An interesting episode from our fascinating, messy family history!
Excellent post! T Y
And who is to say he was wrong and the RCC is correct? I mean definitively.
What did Jesus say to the Good Thief on the Cross shortly before he died?
“Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
Well, the point in this case is that the Church had an established position on the matter, and this Pope came up with another one and tried to impose it. The job of a pope isn’t to create novel doctrine or throw out ones he doesn’t like, but simply to protect the existing ones as handed down to him.
Neither this pope nor Francis has done that, but both have spoken from the Chair of Peter to promote a position in conflict with the established teaching of the Church. Francis knows that this is not okay, and that’s why he won’t answer the dubia, because if he did there’d be no denying that he’s a heretic.
Time is relative. It will certainly seem like "today" to the thief.
at the risk of scandalizing my dearly departed Irish relatives, I must submit the following:
THIS pope Francis is a phony, a fourflusher and an imposter to the seat of St. Peter. I live for the moment he is gone. in my opinion, he is even far worse than Obama.
And no one could ever think THAT possible.
Great post. Thank you.
Love your red comments!
‘What did Jesus say to the Good Thief on the Cross shortly before he died?
“Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”’
Certainly, but is “paradise” the same as “heaven”? I think we can answer that if we know if Jesus went to heaven that day or not, can’t we?
“18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.” 1 Peter 3:18-22
It seems to me these verses say that Christ descended into “sheol”, hell, or “the grave” that day, rather than ascended into heaven.
Also:
“8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)” Ephesians 4:8-10
Note the order here, Christ descended “into the lower parts” of the earth before he ascended. Of course, the Bible also tells us that Christ’s ascent to heaven didn’t happen until 40 days after the resurrection:
“9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Acts 1:9-11
So, if Christ did not go to heaven “that day”, but descended to somewhere else, it seems logical that “paradise” cannot be heaven, but must be a different place entirely. In fact, the Jewish tradition of the time held “paradise” to be a separate section of “hell” from the one where those who were condemned awaited their judgement. The New Testament seems to reflect his in the depiction of “Abraham’s bosom” in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man:
“22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.” Luke 16:22-26
He may have been inspired to tell what God revealed to him and the Church refused to hear it is another possibility.
Who cares about a theologically esoteric issue like this (immediate vs. delayed gratification or punishment)? It’s a real pie-in-the-sky distinction if I’ve ever heard one. No bearing on anyone’s life on earth and nothing you can do about it.
The word 'today" stands between the two clauses and Greek usage would permit the writer to put it anywhere in the sentence. Also there was no punctuation in the original texts so Jesus could have been saying "I say unto to you this day" that you will be with me in paradise.
Also the usage of paradise would have a connotation of a park or preserve or some kind of enclosed area. The Garden of Eden would be an example.
Lastly let us remember the teachings of Jesus on difficult verses in this case specifically of His promise to "reward every man according to his works" when? when He returns in triumph "in the Glory of His Father with his angels". There are many more supportive verses to add clarity on this subject.
“There are many more supportive verses to add clarity on this subject.”
True, and I think that is the most important point. There are a great many verses supporting the view that final rewards or final condemnations do not come until the final judgement, after the second coming of Christ. However, the people supporting the opposite view only seem to ever be able to cite this one isolated verse, whose meaning is ambiguous if you study it critically.
“Who cares about a theologically esoteric issue like this (immediate vs. delayed gratification or punishment)? It’s a real pie-in-the-sky distinction if I’ve ever heard one.”
Well, personally I only really care about this issue because some churches like to denounce people who have a certain opinion on the issue, even if they can support that opinion with Scripture.
Really, the issue itself should not have much bearing on our lives here on earth, but when churches decide to draw a “line in the sand” on this issue, THAT does have a bearing.
Once upon a time, there was this “Church” who was corrected . . . only they didn’t take corrections. Even when God sends them messengers. How does it end? Time will tell.
“Inspiration” is not his job.
Your relatives, had they lived to see him, would probably agree with you 100%!
no doubt. growing up, there was always a picture of the
Pope and President Kennedy right up there on the television. us kids were allowed only to look, not touch it.
Interesting viewpoint. If God inspires and reveals to us truths, we are to hide them under a basket if it conflicts with what the almighty RCC has decreed. Earlier when I proposed that Pope XXII may have got it right, you came back with the Church had an established position on the matter. I would think truth should count for something but that must be the Protestant in me.
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.