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

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