www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Just Suppose......(re: the new pope)

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.