Just suppose.....

that the new pope turned out to be a liberal who would bow to the wishes of the liberals in the Church and declare "ex cathedra" that women should be allowed into the priesthood and Catholics should be allowed to use artificial birth control....

What would this mean to you as a Catholic?

Would such a pronouncement, defying 2000 years of tradition and teaching, be in any way valid?

Would you consider "doxing" if you are a Catholic?

I'm not trying to start a ruckus, but I just have to wonder about this, given the number of times I keep hearing from the media that the "members of the Catholic Church" want these changes.

My hope is, of course, in the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit that these things NOT come to pass.

Brother Ed

I would thank the Holy Spirit that my hopes and prayers were finally answered.

I don't know. On a conservative RC board you would probably be banned for bringing up the subject. On a liberal board you would be hailed as a great theologian who ought to be the next pope.

According to one geneticist I heard in 200,000 years in won't make any difference. Men will cease to exist.

I don't know.

Dan L

Dear Brother Ed, CHRIST IS RISEN! I don't think you have a serious worry bro...after all, 114 of the 117 cardinals that will cooperate with the Holy Spirit is selecting the next pope...were appointed by Pope John Paul II. Now not that he 'stacked the deck' but I'm sure he chose men who had were firm in their orthodoxy and firm that in Catholic faith...and to boot, there is the promise of Christ Himself, that the 'gates of hell' will never prevail against the Church! I think we can all sleep soundly tonight...albeit with a great sorrow in our hearts over having the Holy Father no longer in our midst. From the Holy Father's place above, you can be SURE that he has the Lord's ear in any case...and I'll bet the Lord listens to his requests too (or as the Eastern Church says: has great boldness before God). Rest well tonight Brother...it is His Church; His Bride and you can be sure He'll take good care of her!

In this faith,
+Fr. Gregory

Since according to the principles laid down in Lumen Gentium the issues you refered to are closed due to the authorative nature of the ordinary magisterium I dont think we have to consider such things. Those calling for these changes have misunderstood the Church's Dogmatic Constitution and the commentary in the Catechism 890-892 on that subject. The Pope's charism ex Cathedra is not inspriation but infallibility. His it is to define what is undefined in a definitive manner not to create something new. That violates the very principle and understanding of ex Cathedra statements found in both Vatican councils. With a proper understanding of Catholic ecclesiology one can see the hypothetical situation you are giving as a scenario is an impossibility.

Would you mind explaining that a little bit?

Thank you.

Brother Ed

I have heard (facetiously, of course, but maybe there is a grain of truth here) that if the pope dies the night before he is to promulgate a new doctrine, it's a good sign that the Holy Spirit is at work.

For those of us who believe that the Pope, like the Church is guarded from error that would be an impossiblity in the first place.
And should a liberal Pope try something like that I think lightning would strike from heaven and spare us all the bother.
Should such a thing ever really happen would I consider "doxing", probably not, just join with others and elect ourself a real Pope.

Stephanos I

If the birth control teaching were changed, I would be very happy. I think the Catholic teaching is wrong on this issue; I think the Orthodox teaching is right on this issue.

If women priests were allowed, I would be stunned but I would try to be open-minded. It would be a big change. On the other hand, Mary was the first person who received Jesus and who gave Jesus to humanity; and that is ultimately what a priest does in a sacramental way.

But, I would be concerned if this new pope made those changes "ex cathedra" without consulting the bishops or holding a council. Those are very big changes, and to make such changes without consulting the bishops --especially in light of Vatican 2-- would give me serious pause. It would make me wonder what is next: with this pope or future popes. Nevertheless, I would probably stick it out as a Catholic for the same reasons I am Catholic today: the Gospel, the Eucharist, unity, independence from secular governments, and my own personal heritage.

Now, the above opinions are only my opinions, and they are my answer to original poster's question. For those who wonder --perhaps with shock or outrage-- that I can be a Catholic while disagreeing with my Church on certain issues, the answer is simple: there is more to value in being a Catholic than in not. There is the Gospel. There is the Eucharist. There is the international unity on issues (especially moral issues), and there is the independence from secular governments, and both come from unity with the bishop of Rome. And, frankly, I am a Catholic: by hertiage as well as choice. All of that doesn't mean I agree with every single thing that the Church does or say, officially or unofficially. For example, I still think the birth control teaching is wrong and I think the ban on female clergy is questionable, etc. Yet, I find a way to live within the system because I think there is more value to being Catholic than not. Allow me to illustrate from everyday life. Generally, I think it is a good thing for my society to have laws. Laws generally prevent crime and promote peace and justice. However, I disagree with some of those laws, and I disagree with the rulings of some judges in some cases, and so on. Nevertheless, I'm not going to leave a society of law to be hermit or an anarchist because I disagree with some laws or some rulings. Instead, I find a way to live within the system because most of it is quite good. And, in both my Church and in my society, I try to cultivate a little humility; and I try to realize that maybe, just maybe, I might be wrong and the other guy might be right; and, hence, getting along is more important than insisting on what **I** want.

But, the original question is --in my opinion-- purely theoretical. John Paul 2 selected cardinals who agreed with his views, and only cardinals can realistically become the pope, and thus it is virtually impossible that a man can be elected to the papacy who disagrees with John Paul 2's views. And, JP2 did not approve of artificial birth control or women priests. Hence, the next pope probably won't, either.

--John

Brother Ed,

Have you been eating too much ice cream before you sleep? You are having nightmares.

Paul

One more time...

The Pope cannot change what has already been affirmed. Ex Cathedra infallibility allows him to make binding judgements and definitions upon what already has been done. He cannot draw doctrines out of thin air because his charism is infallibility not inspiration. Please look at the document Lumen Gentium and the points in the Catechism that refer to these things. The Pope cannot for instance ex cathedra decide angels dont exist. His role is to confirm his brothers in the faith they have recieved. Why is this boogey man story of the inspired Pope being banded around a Byzantine Catholic forum??

Dear Myles,

I don't think this thread of this discussion hinges upon a mistaken understanding of the ex cathedra doctrine. I think the thread of this discussion is to speculate what it would be like if the next pope tried to make liberal changes in the Church.

That topic is worth consideration because it is a possibility, regardless of precedent. If precedent has one consistent lesson, in secular or religious matters, it is this: whoever has power can try to set precedent.

Yet, the history of the Church also has some interesting examples of when the Holy Spirit protected the deposit of the Faith regardless of the precedent that human beings were attempting to impose. For example, the controversy about Arianism and the orthodoxy of St. Athanasius comes to mind. So too does the iconclast controversy. Etc.

So, the topic is not "ex cathedra."

The topic is: What would happen to the Church if the next pope did, in fact, try to impose liberal changes on the Church such as allowing artificial birth control or the ordination of women? Hence, what would be the ramifications to the Church overall, and in the lives of us as individuals, and what is the likelihood of any of this happening?

--John

P.S. Welcome back, Myles. I presume your spring break (following your university examinations) is over?

Is there really such a thing as a liberal Pope or a conservative Pope? Can a Pope or bishops be corrected or removed if he is a professed liberal or conservative? And by whose definition of these terms? They are so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o vague. Last year's liberalism is today's conservatism. Like shifting sand.

What if the Pope is heterodox rather than orthodox? Wouldn't this be the real issue here rather than using contemporary political terms?

Joe

I believe popes can legally be removed from office for teaching heresy. It hasn't been done, that I am aware of, but I understand that the bishops do have that authority. My reading of the decrees on birth control and women priests is that they are binding and not open to change. How do others on the forum view this?

My point is that the Pope could not do these things. Both Vatican Councils and the Catechism make this clear and as such you are mistaken to maintain they are a possibility. They can never be because it has been declared by the ordinary magisterium that a male only priesthood, for instance, belongs to the deposit of faith. This has been what the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has repeatedly insisted against those theologians who have tried to insinuate the issue is still open, when in fact it is closed.

The Orindary magisterium is protected from error, in that sense it is infallible, the only difference is its not definitive like the extraordinary magisterium i.e. an Ecumenical Council. Think of it like Michaelangelo chipping away at the stone. The ordinary magisterium carves away at the stone until it appears definitively. Sometimes though the process is accelerated normally by the appearance of heresy and extraordinary means i.e. an ex cathedra statement are needed to repel wrong teaching.

From the Catechism:

Since John Paul II and his predecessors i.e. Paul VI have declared that, for instance, the use of contraception is gravely disordered it cannot be removed. Our understanding of that teaching might be altered until a definitive statement on it is arrived at however the kind of changes that this thread envisions are, as I've stated, impossible according to the Church's Dogmatic Constitution. If a Pope did try to do these things he would be ultra vires, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would declare his statements would be null and void. Whether or not Canon Law would allow him to be charged as a heretic is another thing, since the technical offence would be being 'ultra vires' and depending on how you understand the code of Canon Law it might not be possible to charge a Pope with heresy. However, there would not be need since the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church makes clear that he cannot legitmately teach heresy. So even if he wanted to the Holy Office would have the right to invalidate his statements. In such extreme circumstances I think the Sacred Congregation could find cause for his excommunication and deposition. I can certainly think of one interpretation of Canon Law--which I'll keep to myself--that would allow a Pope to be tried for heresy.

But to conclude. Its not possible for the truths revealed by God's assistance to be changed. They are now set in stone. All that a future Pope can do is influence the shape of the rest of the statue and if you dont believe me, when the new one is elected, write to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and ask them

PS) I'm still on break. Yay, yay!

I think the papal condemnation of artificial birth is like the papal condemnation of Gallileo once was: supposedly binding but doomed to be disregarded and (one day) to be recanted.

As for the ordination of women, about the only kind of precedent (that I know of) that is similar in scope and breadth of change was the abandoment of keeping Jewish law as a requirement for being Christian. That issue was settled at the Council of Jerusalem, as described in the Acts of the Apostles. I suspect the ordination of women would likewise require a council of the entire Church.

--John

The Galileo decision was technically correct since Galileo's proof's by analogy were wrong. Newton was the first to show with mathematical certainty what Galileo had tried to show. Moreover, Galileo's condemnation was not for Copernicus' theory but for his statement that the book of Joshua was errenous because it said Moses held up his hands and the sun stopped moving. The Church thus condemned him for maintaining not the interpretation but scripture itself was mistaken--which is obviously heresy--and sentenced him to house arrest.

The issues of women's ordination and contraception are not open to discussion according to the Church's dogmatic constitution and her Catechical teaching. Women will never be ordained, nor will contraception ever be seen as anything but sinful (rightfully so). As I've said in a previous post the Popes will continue the sculpting but cannot cut off bits of the sculpture already set in stone and indeed neither can an Ecumenical Council, which would have to be conveyned and confirmed by the Pope anyway. Like it or loathe it what has been uncovered of the deposit of faith will not be covered up.

You are quite correct, Myles, in stating what got Galileo in trouble. It was exactly his position on the Book of Joshua that did it. He was warned to not pursue that subject, but like some of our moderns, just had to go there. The Church has gotten a bum rap over Galileo ever since.

Myles, here is the difference between our positions in a nutshell. You actually believe that the magisterium is infallible in matters of faith and morals. I do not.

Hence, according to your position, it is impossible for the teachings on women priests and artificial birth control to be changed -- because the magisterium (which is infallible) said so.

As for me, I see this "magisterium" as a very fallible human institution. It has done and taught much that is good, by the grace of God. However, it has also taught and done many sinful, horrible things, abominations before God and man: the inquisition, the crusades, the persecution of Christians and non-Christians, and so on down through the ages till our era's scandal of child-molesting priests and the bishops and the Vatican that covered it up or turned a blind eye. This is not infallibility. This is sin, the product of very fallible human beings. The same fallibility can also produce error and folly at times, such as the condemnation of Galileo and the establishment of a banned books list. And, the same fallibility can also produce arrogance at times, such as refusing to acknowledge (in whole or in part) the rights and traditions of the Eastern Churches. Etc. These are not examples of an infallible institution; these are examples of an institution which is very fallible. Yes, the grace of God is always with us; so too is the possibility of sin, error or even just folly.

So too is the possibility of repentance. Occasionally, the Church as an institution has actually practiced what it preaches to the masses: repentance. Happily, this happened sometimes under Pope John Paul II. As a result, the Church is stronger in some ways within and with its relations with non-Catholics.

I also respect the fact that the papacy must consider issues as they apply around the world: East as well as West, South as well as North, poor as well as rich and so on. This is true politically and culturally as well as theologically.

I also respect the fact that the papacy (and other people) actually **believe** in the infallibility of the magisterium. I don�t share that belief, but I do respect it and (more to the point) I respect the fact that many people actually have that belief. And, I recognize that this belief has consequences when an adherent of it becomes the bishop of Rome.

Hence, I personally find it a question of real importance and genuine interest who the next pope will be and, therefore, what the future of much of the Church will be.


Enjoy, young scholar !

I have to sign off for now and attend to the day. Thank you for a good debate. :-)

--John

I will respect your freedom not to believe. However, I will query the logic of this choice given the fact that Jesus explcitly promises the Church this charism and if Apostolic succession is a reality the Church can never loose that infallibility. If the Church is not infallible then either Jesus is wrong, Jesus lied, or Jesus never said what the gospels record him saying. I dont have to consider any of these possibilities since I believe that He actually did state that the Church can bind and loose and whoever hears her hears Him and the One who sent Him. However, how do you manage it?

Moreover, how do the sins of past Catholics mean anything to infallibility in faith and morals. You mention the inability of certain Bishops to deal with the sex scandal. What has that got to do with the infallibility of the Church in faith and morals? The behaviour of individuals in these cases does not have any doctrinal impact so why does it matter? We're not arguing that the Church and its members are impeccable, Jesus says 'get behind me Satan' to St Peter immediately after he gives him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Nobody is saying that the Church's hierarch's cannot sin, simply that they can never teach what is errenous. None of what you have mentioned reflects errenous teaching on the part of the Church. Perhaps human fraility in certain cases but not doctrinal error. If the Church were capable of such a thing then every doctrine we believe even those extraordinarily proclaimed could be wrong. Since our only guarantee of these would not be the infallibility Jesus promised by simple democratic consent. The Creed would then have to read not 'I believe' but 'I opine'.

Lastly, John Paul the Great apologised for the sins of Catholics not for the teaching of the Catholic Church. He was boldly outspoken and unapologetic for that, as we all should be. The Church cannot logically make errors because if she can then that means Jesus must've made an error and such a notion is absurd given that he's God.

Hi,

Two different animals in there.

In favor of a male-only priesthood we have Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Not an ex-cathedra document itself, but a sentence that teaches that it is divienely revealed that the priesthood is reserved to men.

Therefore, in my opinion, the teaching itself ranks as high as an ex-cathedra definition and therefore, no matter what our views on the matter are (I would have no trouble at all with woman priests, but I am not the Church), a Pope believing otherwise would be a heretic, and therefore, deposed ipso facto. A Pope attempting to teach otherwise will not happen, the Holy Spirit assures us of that.

The case of AFP is entirely different. It is not a dogma of the Catholic Church that all forms of AFP are wrong. It is simply the Church's current opinion.

I would have not trouble whatsoever if the Church relaxed the current stance and allowed the use of AFP methods that only prevent conception, and in no way may interfere with the reproductive process after conception (such as condoms).

Allowing AFP methods that might interrupt the pregnancy at any time after conception would be equivalent to allow the murdering of innocents as morally acceptable, again, the Church will not do this.

Shalom,
Memo

That's like asking if God can create a rock so big he can't lift it.

Tammy

John, just curious - are you aware that the teaching of the infallibility of the Magisterium is itself considered an infallible teaching, to be held by all who consider themselves Roman Catholics?

First of all let me remind everyone that in the Latin Church there is a latae sententiae excommunication for heresy. And to say that women can or will be ordained is heresy. The ignorant notion that artificial birth control is ok IS HERESY! So if a Latin Catholic obstinately persists in these heresies and all other conditions are met he ipso facto automatically excommunicated. I do not know if there is a latae sententiae excommunication in the Eastern Code of Canon Law, I think it is ferendae sententiae. Anyway with that said the Pope CANNOT err when officially teaching on matters of faith and morals. To say "What if?" is stupid because it CANNOT happen. And not to believe in the infallibility of the Pope is also heresy.


Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Michael

Charles,

It is good to hear from you. I hope you are feeling better. I have something to say in regards to something you said earlier about a Pope being removed from his office. A Pope if validly elected can never be removed from office. The only way to 'get rid' of a valid Pope is if he freely resigns or dies. Even Canon Law states that he may resign but not that the resignation is accepted by anyone. Meaning no one even has the authority to accept the resignation from the Supreme Pontiff since he is 'the highest you can go'. No one can dispose of a Pope. Not even a Council because the Council is not greater than the Pope. The Council is subject to the Pope. If a valid Pope were to be removed from office against his will he would still remain Pope and if they tried to elect another Pope it would be invalid since the see is not vacant.

I hope to hear from you soon. Pax tecum.

Your friend,
Michael

Sigh... I've never liked the "h" word, particularly since I'm from a half-Orthodox bloodline. We never used that word at home, even when we disagreed, and I think it is best left by the wayside for the most part. I tend to think it is particularly uncharitable in light of the fact that Pope John Paul II himself so studiously avoided its use.

Holding a "notion" that artificial birth control is "okay" is not heresy - the key is in the full list of conditions. Roman Catholicism, in particular, is extremely legalistic.

One can hold an opinion contrary to Church teaching and not be a heretic, but the duty of a good Catholic who finds himself or herself in such a quandry is to buck up and follow the Church teaching while studying and praying and coming to understand it.

If we thought and did everything that was moral, then we would all be "living saints" from the outset and in no need of daily conversion. But we're not. We struggle. Even a saint can disavow the Lord Himself when he's scared. Isn't that part of the lesson of St. Peter? Wow - the man whom Jesus Himself called "the Rock" denied Him three times. He even told Jesus he wouldn't do that, but he did. But the point isn't the bad thing he did, but the simple fact that he repented of it. Even saints have their low points, because they are human beings and fraught with weakness. The people who did the ultimate rejecting act of God's love by crucifying Jesus still received His forgiveness -"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Sin is rejecting God's love, heresy (a specific type of sin) is rejecting His church.

Face it, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are intellectual religions. You have to think about them... a lot. They are complex and beautiful. They have centuries of thought and history and tradition that go into what they teach.

It would be nice to be simple people of simple faith - those who are are truly blessed and happy - but a lot of the most fascinating saints ARE beacons because they struggled with their faith and exhibited spiritual frailty and weakness, despite their exceptionally high intellects. St. Augustine, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Teresa Benedict (Edith Stein) were not people who obeyed easily. They were works in progress who were able to teach the rest of us.

To say "women can or will be ordained" is, in my view, not heresy but rather, more simply, a nonsensical and misguided statement given the tradition and teachings of the Church. The correct response to a person who hold that view is not to brandish the "h" word, but rather, to encourage them to more consideration and study of the Church's position on the matter. Not everyone knows why we believe certain things - to me JP2 (as folks my age and younger lovingly called him) did so much to explain to people why we believe what we believe and to give us a very public, real life example to follow in our own age.

I can tell you that I myself had slipped into a phase of agnosticism at one point in my life. I have friends who did the same. The fact that we worked on it, studied theology and church history, and embraced Catholicism anew is really in large part thanks to a Church that shows its foundering members love, support, and guidance. You can't do that if you throw around uncharitable labels. The legacy of JP2 was a real legacy of love - sometimes it is tough love - but it was always love.

I would be inclined to suggest that such a Pope should adopt the name of Honorius.

Incognitus

I agree, Annie - I sympathize (having myself been many things, including atheist, agnostic and Wiccan, in my not too distant past!). Please note that I was not accusing anyone of heresy! If it sounded that way, my apologies.

However, I don't think it's "legalistic" to say that being a Catholic (Roman or otherwise) means, at least in part, that you assent to all the non-negotiable (infallible, for lack of a better word ) teachings of that Church.

[warning - long-winded story ahead!]

For example: there are many things I admire about the little "Free Methodist" church which my grandparents, along with a few other hardy pioneers, founded in Kansas City, Missouri. I respect their faith and their love, and all my life they were an inspiration to me because of their love for Christ.

However, I could never *join* their church. Why? Because I don't agree with several of the doctrines which they hold to be necessary for membership. So I can admire them but I can never be a part of them (in this world, anyway ).

By the same token, they admired many things about the Catholic Church, and work together with Catholics on many social issues. But they could never become Catholics because they just couldn't get past a lot of the doctrinal differences. I respected them for that, because even though I now think they were wrong, I also think they did the best they knew how to do.

So yes, I understand that there are many people who just can't agree with all the things the Catholic Church teaches. But if you're going to call yourself a *member* of that Church, you should at least try. Otherwise, why belong to it? Why not become Orthodox ... or Methodist?

Michael, the whole thing about a pope teaching heresy is a theoretical argument since, to my knowledge, it has never happened. There is a good bit of speculation as to what could be done if it ever occurred, but it is only speculation. I do think the one pope who did resign - can't remember his name - was in essence, coerced into resigning. I will have to look that one up.

byzanTN,

The last pope who resigned (Celestine V) did so because he never wanted to be pope! He was a hermit known for his holiness and was, in desperation, elected to the papacy (there had been a nearly 3 year interregnum). He resigned after four months and fled back to the hills where he hid.

Other popes have resigned, including Benedict IX who was an utter disagrace to the papacy. He resigned in 1045 to get married, retook the papacy in 1047 and was driven from the papacy in 1048.

Fr. Deacon Edward

If what is suggested occurs- a pope contradicting the received teaching of his predecessors- that would mean that my faith was wrong, that the Church is not infallible. That is unthinkable and impossible to me, which means if it happened I would have no choice but to become Orthodox; indeed that is the only thing that could make me Orthodox.
But then again, maybe my faith would be so shaken that I would become Quaker or Mennonite, or whatever it was that I decided was the opposite of Catholic.
Such speculation is probably not wise...

Many thanks, since I could not remember names, but knew some pope had resigned. I studied that too many years ago. But the "driven" out part I understand happened many times with clergy who were too much for the faithful to tolerate.

Dear Theist Gal,

Yes, that's a clever one: we are always right, and if you think we are wrong then you are wrong. It's a fine little tautology. It also reminds me of the classic liar's paradox, for example, "This sentence is false."


Dear Myles,

All of those bad things that I listed in an earlier post were officially endorsed and were taught as true and good by the Church's officials (the pope or the entire magisterium) at one time or another.

Yet those things --the inquisition, the crusades, and so on-- were wrong precisely because they contradicted the Gospel. As you pointed out, the Gospel does not change because it was taught by Christ, who is God. And the Gospel sets the standard for right and wrong not because it is doctrine but because it is Jesus, the living Word of God.

Yet, the Church, being human as well as united to the Divine, can be fallible. It can be sinful, but it can also simply be mistaken in how it interprets or understands the Fullness of Truth that is Christ and His Gospel.

For example, I mentioned the liar's paradox earlier in this post. There is an example of that in Scripture. St. Paul cited it ("All Cretans are liars...") at Titus 1:12. He did so to prove a point. That point was to tell Titus to crack down on dissenters in the Church in Crete. So far, I surmise, you would probably agree with St. Paul. Now, let's move along further in his letter to Titus, to Titus 2: 9-10. St. Paul wrote:

"Slaves are to be under the control of their masters in all respects, giving them satisfaction, not talking back to them or stealing from them, but exhibiting complete good faith, so as to adorn the doctrine of God our savior in every way."

Well, that thought runs completely contrary to our notions of human rights that we have evolved over 2000 years: including (in my country) a Civil War and a Civil Rights movement precisely to eradicate slavery and its vestiges.

Does that mean the Gospel was wrong or that Jesus was mistaken, or that Jesus was less than God, etc.? Of course not.

However, it does illustrate that the Truth of God is a whole lot bigger than limited human minds can ever fully grasp. It also illustrates that human beings (even saints) can make mistakes in how they understand the Truth of God. It also illustrates how the times and culture of a person can shape their understanding. In St. Paul's day, slavery was as normal as paid labor and his advice made a kind of sense: slaves should be good members of the society in which they find themselves. However, St. Paul's writing also illustrates a dangerous weakness: assuming that what is normal is ok instead of questioning things to see if they are truly ok. Hence, that verse and others like it have been used to justify genuine, horrible repression of people for centuries. Etc.

I submit that a likewise pattern can be observed in the history of the Church when it has held certain ideas and practices as good and infallible (including the idea of infallibility itself). For yet another example, there is capital punishment: which the Church once approved of (and imposed) and which it now condemns.

The Gospel does not err, for Christ did not err, for Christ is truly God as well as truly Man. But other men can and do err, and that has happened in interpreting the Gospel.

Now, you suggested, Myles, (in a nice turn of phrase) that if there is not infallibility, the creed would change from "I believe" to "I opine." But the history of the creeds shows the opposite. The creeds were written precisely to correct misinterpretations of the Gospel. Those corrections occurred not because the Church in its human members is infallible but because the Holy Spirit guides the Church to the truth and to the true understanding of the Gospel.

Thus, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church can arrive at fuller or deeper or broader understandings of the Gospel. However, that often happens as the Church itself makes mistakes with interpreting the Gospel. The Council of Jerusalem illustrates that: St. Peter (the first pope) argued that Jewish law and customs should be followed by Christians; St. Paul argued the opposite; and St. Paul's position prevailed.

In sum, I think Christianity is about Christ, and Christ is far bigger than any human doctrines. Sometimes we humans make mistakes in interpreting Christ's Gospel, and history shows that some of those mistakes were made by the officials of the Church. Yet, the Holy Spirit of Christ guides the Church to correct those mistakes.

--John

So it's okay to disagree with official teachings of the Catholic Church and still be a Catholic? Huh. I did not know that. Thanks for the education.

Dear Theist Gal and Myles,

Well . . . what can I say? :rolleyes: Officially, it's not ok. Perhaps, spiritually, it is also not ok. However, it is what I do.

To be honest, sometimes I disagree with official teachings of the Church out of stubborness of pride. There's my sin.

At other times, I disagree with official teachings of the Church because I genuinely disagree --I genuinely don't believe-- with one point or another. In those instances, it's not that I'm refusing to believe; it's that I simply don't believe certain things.

And, to be honest, it's often a mixture of both.

So, what am I to do? Pretend I believe something that I don't? Quit the Church? I don't think so. Instead, I believe that the Gospel is true and the Church is worth staying in despite my disagreements with some official teachings -- because the Gospel and Christ is much more than my opinions and myself. And after all the fine intellectual arguments, I muddle forward on imperfect faith.

But, sometimes, I even try to have an open mind. Responses like yours and Myles' are cogent enough and compassionate enough to make me think anew. I thank you both.

Blessings,

--John

--John

Well, we're into it, so let's get into it.

I respectfully submit that in this thread we have an excellent example of one of the possible shortcommings of this Papacy - needless authoritarianism.

In short, over the past 26 years, the Church has taken the position that, if you dissent in any way shape or form on ANYTHING, you are a "bad Catholic."

We've seen it on this board (excommunication of half of the Catholic Church, anyone?), we've seen in on EWTN, and we've seen it in in the disillusionment of hordes of smart, educated people in Western Europe and North America.

As John so correctly points out, many of us who may disagree with the Church's stance on certain issues struggle mightily with it.

I myself would love it if I could be like so many others and just accept everything the Church teaches without question. I envy this type of disposition. I really do.

Unfortunately, some of us are not wired that way.

Does this make us "bad Catholics." I think not.

The Catholic Church has always had a tradition of intellectual discourse. Look at the Vatican museums and library if you don't believe me.

Someone said on one of the news shows yesterday that, for the past 26 years, the Church has tolerated the views of only two intellectuals - the Pope himself and Cardinal Ratzinger.

While this is certainly an exaggeration, it does illustrate the point that there is a good deal of frustration and that the Church must be at least willing to listen and discuss pressing issues.

Yours,

hal

The phenomenon sometimes called "cafeteria Catholicism" or "a la carte Catholicism" (or my own favorite: "breakfast buffet Catholicism") is nothing new. Since the Church does her best to be as inclusive as possible, it is relatively rare for such people to be asked to leave. Those who loudly and obnoxiously insist on contradicting the Church are in another category.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus:

But you must admit that it is not only the "loud and obnoxious" (whatever that means) that are being subjected to scorn.

The same holds true for academics and others who present their views in a completely non-threatening manner.

Finally, while this scorn may not be coming from the Church at the highest levels (i.e. excommunication and the like), it is certainly common at the Diocesian/Eparchial and parish levels.

Yours,

hal

I didn't realize I was being compassionate, but if that's how it came across, then ... you're welcome.

(Maybe my dry sense of humor is getting a little too dehydrated?? )

Is that so? I read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2089, which may I remind you was promulgated by Pope John Paul II himself,

"Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."

One alse finds in the Latin Church's Code of Canon Law can. 751(Codex Iuris Canonici) which Pope John Paul II also promulgated,

"Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith."

and can. 1364 states,

"...an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."

So obviously he did not avoid it's use. If someone obstinately denies of even obstinately doubts that artificial contraception is wrong or that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is reserved to men alone then THEY ARE A HERETIC. If you hold a opinion contrary to the official teaching of the Church then you are an idiot. Because obviously your opinion has to be wrong. To compare an official teaching on faith and morals to the Gallileo incedent is also ignorant. The Gallileo incedent has to do with science NOT faith and morals. Most American Catholics don't understand that the Church is NOT a freaking democracy. And you can't just believe what you want to believe. If you believe something contrary to the Catholic faith you are a heretic and subject therefore to whatever penalties may apply, whether automatic ipso facto excommunication for Latin Catholics and whatever the Code of Eastern Canon Law gives to Eastern Catholics. Geez I hate secularism. It has turned people into not only morons but heretics of the faith as well.

Pax vobiscum.
Michael

Michael, calm down. You'll blow a gasket. Do what I do, since I don't drink, have some chocolate. But I will agree that neither Christ nor the Church has ever polled the academics, news media, secular authorities, or anyone else when it came to teaching truth. In fact, if Christ had taken a vote among the apostles, they would most likely not have assented to His death. The Church does teach things that I would personally like to change. But I can't do that, even though it would make my life easier. Obeying the Church is hard, just as Christ said that following Him would be. For myself, if I couldn't or didn't accept the authority of the Church to teach in the name of Christ, I would have to leave and go elsewhere. I wouldn't stay in any church if I couldn't accept its authority. That's the way I am wired.

Einstein was an idiot? Go figure!

Our American Founding Fathers were idiots? Go figure!

Ghandi was an idiot? Go figure!

Gallileo ... (well, you get the point).

Look long and hard, ladies and gentlemen. This came from a person that, according to his profile, feels that he might be drawn to the preisthood.

Can we not honestly say that this is not a product of John Paul II's Pontificate?

Can we not honestly say that this is the type of rant we are likely hear on Sunday mornings and read in our parish bulletins?

Can we not honestly say that this is not the complete lack of compassion and understanding that we are likely to see displayed by the priests and bishops currently in the pipeline and coming up through the ranks?

hal

WOW! WOW! WOW! What a thread!

Michael, Why don't you tell us what you think!

John, If there are teachings of the Church you don't BELIEVE, I would suggest finding a good solid confessor, who can help you with this. Not agreeing with teachings or not following teachings is one thing, not believing is a very serious matter one must come to grips with, and find answers for.

To All,
I am not trying to preach here, I am a sinner just like everyone else. The question one must ask oneself is do I not believe the teachings or do I simply choose not to follow the teachings. The sin of not following can be forgiven, and with the help of prayer and true repentance, in time can be overcome. The sin of not believing and simply rejecting a teaching is, I believe, the ultimate sin of pride. I repeat, I am the first to acknowledge my sinfulness and I beg undeserved mercy bacause of my sinfulness.

I thank God that the Church teaches what it does without compromise, to do otherwise would be to neglect the Gospel.

I have to go right now, or I would say more. Perhaps it is best we get more input here from others before I say anything else anyway.

In Christ, Bill

I suppose the real issue is, "Why be Catholic?" The answer is the papacy, because the papacy is what defines the Catholic Church.

After all, the Protestants have Jesus and the Bible; and the Orthodox (and some would say the Episcopalians) have the Eucharist. But only the Catholic Church has all of these plus the bishop of Rome as Vicar of Christ. Only the Catholic Church has the pope: as pope and not merely as a kind of figurehead.

So, why the pope? The answer to that is the answer to why be Catholic.

For me, the answer is actually quite simple. Some might call it simpleminded. But, it's what I believe.

I believe that Jesus Christ actually mean what He said. And Jesus said to Simon,

"You are Rock ("Peter"), and upon this rock I shall build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I shall give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." (The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 16: 18-19)

Now, I realize that different groups of Christians interpret that Scripture different. However, I know how the Catholic Church interprets that Scripture: it established the papacy. And I believe that the Catholic interpretation is correct.

So.

So, I don't like everything the pope and his bishops have held: whether it is this recently passed pope or previous ones. But, I cannot deny what Jesus said, and so I cannot deny the pope. I might privately disagree with some things, as I would any leader because no one (but Christ) is perfect. But, I follow Christ and thus Christ's vicar nevertheless.

--John

Dear ByzanTN - thanks for the suggestion; I shall have a hot chocolate!

Dear Hal, I'm not scorning "academics and others who present their views in a completely non-threatening manner" - as I wrote in another thread (cf Town Hall) in the past day or so, I have an absolute horror of people who used "administrative methods" to crush thought. I am well aware that such Gestapo types exist, and I have no part with them. But I would not throw them out of the Church,I would merely attempt to restrain their anti-intellectual behavior.

Incognitus

Lookie here the kid has a drachma to toss into the pot

Yeah Bill this is indeed quite the thread and its subject matter is important to because it goes to the heart of our faith. I think John summed it up quite well when he said the discussion touches upon the very meaning of what being a Catholic means.

For me it can only mean one thing: Love. Being a Catholic is first and foremost the relationship of love between Creator and creature. And as St Paul reminds us in 1 Cor 13 love 'believes all things'.

I'm a dirty thilthy sinner, of that there is no question. Many people call me 'good', they have a veil over their eyes. I am a horrendous sinner in so many secret ways that my spirit must run red with the blood of Christ at every confession, at every Mass. Damned and damnable were St Augustine's words I think and they apply to me excellently...

...if not for Jesus

The Divine Mercy strikes a revert like myself like a baseball bat to the back of the skull. I dont get it, I cant understand, at 19 I've grown up in a culture that says you're worth something if you DO something. But God says something different, something shocking. God says 'arent you not worth many sparrows?'

It stuns me because I am worth nothing. Nothing really is. The Universe itself is approximately 13.7 billion years old and even that is hurtling towards some kind of cataclysmic ending that will see it fall back into chaos. Does it not strike you then? That we beings who live 120 years at best have been given the gift of knowing and loving the infinate, transcendent, immutable God?
What has this to do with obidience to the Magisterium? My answer is everything.

Because we love because God first loved us as is written in 1 Jn 4:19 and we obey because of love. The two most important commandments are not general directives. The directives are covered in extensive moral codes found throughout scripture and tradition. But they speak of an attitude, a heart. When a man is in love with a woman, really in love, he can kill for her, die for her, he would even let her kill him if she wished it. And this is precisely what Jesus showed us. He let his loved ones murder Him to prove His love. The love of God inspires love and it is that love that gives me a Catholic heart.

You see Jesus' love moves me. It moves me in ways that the lexicon of the English language cannot explain. It is deep it is profound it is something that flows out of my soul and into somewhere else . And because I love my Lord I listen to Him. Now my Lord said to His Apostles whoever hears you hears me and whoever hears me hears the one who sent me. My Lord said to Simon that he could have the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and bind and loose, my Lord told him to confirm his brethren, my Lord said to feed the flock. My Lord did all this and these powers were passed on by Apostolic Succession, the earliest Christians vouch for this as we all well know. As such I must obey the magisterium because love DRIVES me to honour Jesus' words because his love drives me to love Him. And 'if you love me you will abide by my commandments', did He not say these words??

I dont understand everything and I dont need to, theologian or not. Love does the understanding, love lets me the truth: Jesus. And perhaps thats why they say love is blind. Sometimes I go lukewarm sometimes my love is weak and reluctant. I am a teenager there are many sins and temptations i.e. sensuality that I struggle with. But the only way I can beat them is to look at the Lord in His Love because its so profound, so deep, so moving that even the lithe bodies of beautiful young girls cannot tear my attention from it. What could fulfil the heart more than the eyes of God staring deeply into your soul?

Having eyes do you not see, having ears do you not hear? Are your hearts also hardened? You even you to whom the Kingdom of God has been given?

To be a Catholic is to be madly, passionately in love with God and to be in love with God is to do whatever He says and to try, at least, to honour what He has uttered. I dont always understand why He does the things He does and the reasons arent always apparent. But I listen with my heart to the reasons given by Rome and with my heart I learn to like it and do it. Ours is a religion motivated entirely by love and without becoming mystics its impossible to keep it. Thats why God gave us sacraments, so we would have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so the burden would be easy and the yoke light because Christ would carry it Himself within us.

Have you not heard? We live under grace not under law? Trying to live the law by purely human means and trying to understand it all you will learn from it is sin and how to sin. But the sweetness and immanence of God makes it worthwhile, makes it possible full stop.

To conclude, for me, the only way to show my love for God is to honour His Word. Jesus said He would bind in Heaven what was bound on earth, Jesus said that those hearing the disciples heard Him. And for me thats all I need to know. Because Jesus has given me so much...so much...and the only way I can repay Him, the LITTLE I can give is to try and do what He asks of me and that is the heart of Catholicism. In the end taking up the cross is not an ascetic struggle, no it is request from God to respond to Him as He did to us: To die (to yourself) for love.

I dont believe there is any other way to actually follow the regulations of the faith. Jesus evidently didnt either since he told the Scribe that the whole law and prophets hinged on the commandments to love. God expects us to assent and believe that the Church is right with our whole heart, mind, strength and whatever else because He asks us to love with those same things. To trust in Him as a child trusts its Father and a wife trusts her beloved Husband. The magisterium is inerrant, love tells me so, and I obey accordingly.

To be a Catholic is to take on the Imago Christi to become a partaker in the divine nature to know God's love in your soul and simply...to respond with thanks in any way you can, which means to bow ones head when the Church demands and simply accept what we wouldnt otherwise do of our accord. She always gives good reasons and when the heart is full of love it can see that these are right. Even if the devil continues tries to sift us like wheat with sinfulness...

I appreciate your candor. I don't always agree with the Roman Catholic Church or even with the Byzantine Catholic Church but I have no problem trusting the dogmas and the doctrines of the Church. In those areas in which I have some question I can usually simply say I trust the Church but I keep my conscience. That is, in time I believe I will be proven wrong. In the meantime I see no problem with disagreement.

Yet, I think you must be joking when you say that the Pope and Ratzinger are the only ones thought infallible and that all others are treated in an authoritarian fashion. American Bishops who allow for the gutting of the liturgy are allowed to do so. American Bishops who promoted the homosexualists training grounds they called seminaries in the 1970's and 1980's with barely a protest from the Vatican. Virtually no heresy trials during this period. This does not look like the workings of an authoritarian.

Then look at the other side of the coin. Parish councils are in virtually every Church. Nuns have been permitted the abandonment of the habit. Every nation has its own council of bishops.

Now that Pope John Paul II has weathered the storms of heterodoxy the Church seems strong and ready to take on the 21st century.

Dan L

Hal,

Give it a rest. You know as well as anyone else that Michael was talking about baptized Catholics who with hostility challenge the Church. You are uncharitable in the extreme to challenge (mock) someone and use his vocation as a weapon with which to mock him.

Dan L

Well said, byzanTN! Have you run across those media reporters who insist on telling us that "a poll of Catholics in America" think the next Pope should do this, that or the other thing? I want to reach thru the TV and shake them!

(And the chocolate idea sounds really good. Let's all meet at Starbucks at the end of this thread and have a cafe mocha, on me! )

I thought I'd have something more to say here, but Charles, Dan and Myles have already stated what I might have.

Being a simple person, may I make a simple analogy. When a parent sternly corrects a child not to play with the fire or not to agitate the dog, it's not because they don't love the child. The parent is simply looking out for the child. Oftentimes, however, the child doesn't learn the lesson until they get burnt or bit. Love is not always kind. Hard love can be a lesson learned. Am I making any sense?

Bill

Dan:

It was not I who came up with the bit about the Pope and Ratzinger, but thanks for the credit!

Seriously, you raise what appear to be excellent points. Since I have not the faintest clue as to what the RC's do with their liturgy or how they screen their seminarians, I will simply have to take your word for it.

I'm also not sure that liturgical abuses or allowing a culture of homosexuality to exist in a seminary would consisute heresy.

Still, if there was an issue that JPII seemingly cared about, intellectual discourse was silenced on that issue. Can we say mandatory celibacy?

Yours,

hal

Hal,

Sorry if I mis identified the writer. Mandatory celibacy has been lifted for the Eastern Catholics for several years. Our own bishops are slow in acting though we now have some married priests. Ironically is was Pope John Paul II who lifted the ban. Moreover, there are a growning number of Latin Priests who are married. Is there really a ban on discussing the matter?

Doubtless Pope John Paul II had his limitations but they are well overshadowed by his strengths.

Dan L

Professional football has its "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" and The Byzantine Forum certainly has its "Sunday Afternoon Theologians".
Lord have mercy!

True. Obviously (from previous posts), I did not agree with every position Pope John Paul II held. Nevertheless, I greatly admire his consistent and emphatic support for human life and promoting a culture of life. I am also very impressed with his improvement of relations with other Christians and other religions. I am also very impressed with his spiritual writings that I have read; his "Church of the Eucharist" reminds me of the quality and spiritual depth of the Fathers of the Church. I am impressed that he actually apologized for the various sins of the Catholic Church in the past; it was a good and necessary first step to repentance within and with others. His role in the downfall of Soviet Communism was essential. His worldwide evangelism was unparalleled and utterly inspiring. His canonization of many saints, especially lay people, was also inspiring by providing so many new role models. Etc. Most of all, he had genuine love for human beings: individually and overall. I could go on and on, notwithstanding my personal disagreements on some issues. He was clearly John Paul the Great.

--John

Dear Dan, John, et al:

I think we all agree. Given the choice between a Pope who would not change the stance on birth control and one who helped bring down the Commies, I'll take the latter every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Yours,

hal

Miles, God bless him, has put in a welcome and necessary drachma - love is indeed at the foundation of our faith. But to respond with a lepta of my own, I would suggest the it would be well to research the concept of the "magisterium" and even the term itself.
Another correspondent offers the thought that love is not always kind. Saint Paul had a different view of the matter.

Incognitus

I'm sick of hearing the media discuss
allowing "priests to marry".
That's not the question.
No one has even suggested that
priests be allowed to get married.
The proper question is whether
"married men will be allowed to
become priests". There's a world
of difference between the two.

Antonius, that is an excellent point, and one I have not heard before! Good job!

As a convert to the Faith from a two long standing traditions of blatant and vicious anti-catholicism, I find the references here to disagreeing with the teaching of the Church quite troubling.

On Holy Saturday 4 years ago, as part of the Rite of Entrance for Catechumens, I took a VOW of obedience to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church as expressed by the Holy Father and the Ordinary Magisterium.

Those of you who disagree on certain "points" ... do you know that the word "sacramentum" is Latin for "oath"? Do you know that your parents took this oath on your behalf until such time that you would accept (or, God forbid) reject it for yourself??

Do you realize what the scriptures teach regarding the solemnity of making vows before God and then breaking them? I did....and when I took that oath I thought about it for a second or two (already fully convinced of the rightness of my decision to convert) in order to let the full impact of what I was about to do sink in, and then repeated it with all the force of heart and mind I could muster.

Sadly, I think that many, many millions of Catholics have no idea that this is what they have done, either as reverts, converts, or as babies baptized into the Church. Then they feel that because they live in a democracy where every nutcase and fruitcake expects to not only be heard, but to actually influence our lawmaking (vis a vis "gay marriages") that they have a "right" to oppose the teachings of the Church when those teachings do not appeal to them!!!

I think Christ shall have a far different opinion on the Judgment Day. After all, will we not be judged by what we have done with the rules of the Kingdom which we were given. Did Jesus not say this in John's Gospel:

"By this shall you know them that love me....THAT THEY KEEP MY COMMMANDMENTS."

And is not the Church the moral and doctrinal voice of our Lord upon this earth?

If you say "no".........

welcome to chaos, as shown and defined by Protesantism in all its crazy glory.

I would suggest that those here who disagree with the teachings on birth control and male only priesthood get a copy of Christpher West's teaching series on JP II's THEOLOGY OF THE BODY. It is without a doubt the simplest and most straight forward explanation I have heard on this sometimes made to be complex subject.

Brother Ed

Dear Brother Ed:

Thanks for this reminder!

I (and perhaps others) need a jolt of this magnitude once in a while!

Amado

Dear Brother Ed,
I also am a convert from Protestantism - 20 years ago. One thing I've always wondered though was why the Catholic church does not offer Sunday school like Protestants do. The Catholic church has an advanced theology with solid moral teaching, but the ideals don't seem to get past the hierarchy in this country. For example, I've never seen a class offered on the encyclicals of John Paul II at a parish church. Protestants who show up for worship on Sundays, on a regular basis, also usually go to Sunday school and strive to serve God with their complete hearts -however limited their understanding is. Wolfgang

Wolfgang where ever are you living?
There is Sunday School here at our parish every week (although catholics may not always have the teaching of children on Sundays per se they do teach the faith to them.
Actually we have so many classes that we have religious instruction 4 nights a week with over 800 in the program. As to adult faith formation we have 2 classes a week and two bible studies a week.
I think maybe you should familiarize yourself with just what your parish offers READ THE BULLETIN as I continually harp.Then maybe you (they) might know what the Church offers. How many times have I heard "Well why doesnt OUR Church have a Bible Study?" Well it HAS and its been going on for over 10 years now it is YOUR responsiblity to get yourself THERE. (Sometimes I wonder just what planet the laity are living on.)
Stephanos I

Dear Incognitus,

I thought of St. Paul's words less than a minute after making the post in which I stated "Love is not always kind". Being a parent of a teenager and soon to be teenager, what I meant by that was there are times when you have to correct and even scold, not because you want to be mean, but because you are concerned about the child, and you do it out of love, knowing what is right for the child. I'm not one of those parents that lets my kids do whatever they please because I want them to like me and be my friend. That's what I meant by "love is not always kind" and "hard love". I drew that analogy because the Church teaches, many disobey, the Church points out the disobedience and is often branded as being the bad guy. Does that make any sense? Did Christ who is Pure Love, not chastise the Pharisees out of love. I don't think they considered it love at the time, either.

In Christ, Bill

Dear Bill,
To be honest, I knew full well what you meant - it is, for example, a kindness to take someone to the dentist and have his or her teeth attended to, even though while in the process of having the teeth attended to, the patient may not feel that this is the sort of kindness he or she wants!
However, I did think it right to point out that Saint Paul teaches us that love is kind, and I'm sure you agree.

fraternally in Christ,

Incognitus

Stephanos I,
I envy you & your parish! However, I stick to my guns. There has been minimal adult education at the Roman Catholic parishes I've attended in the last 20 years in Ohio. Frankly, I find too many Roman Catholics want to just put in a minimal effort - fulfill their obligation, which really turns me off. I wish they would just stay at home, if their hearts aren't into worship, like they do in Europe. By the way, I've been attending a Byzantine church for over a year, which I like much better! Pax Christi, Wolfgang

Oops - sorry TG, I realized that I did not include the post I was responding to. It wasn't your post. I didn't think you were trying to label anyone - sorry for any misunderstanding.

I think it is fair to say that to be a Catholic, you follow the teachings of the Church. But sometimes they are hard to accept in your heart and mind. If you do what is required by the teaching, but don't fully accept it in your heart and mind - but at the same you work toward better understanding of a teaching - then I would say that you are very much "practicing" as a Catholic. They don't call us "practicing" for nothing.

To me, the lesson of St. Thomas is in part that some people have to see and touch everything in order to be faithful and we're the unlucky ones. I'm definitely in that class.