J
JReducation
Guest
Not sure where you’re going. Can you go further? Thanks.
True
I’ve always liked that quote.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TEPO
Guest
I’ve learned to focus my faith in the direction of Charity towards others lately… I sometimes find it helpful to simplify my faith because I have a tendency to overly complicate things; trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint all the faults or problems I can find.
Life is so much better spent when displaying honest care for others in the real world… During my personal time reflecting in prayer and being thankful for all things.
This to me is what being Catholic is all about… There are many things for us to do, a whole lot of work to be done.
T
TrueLight
Guest
This really works for me. Honestly, I could care less about the Church clarifying things later on. I see the Holy Spirit as guiding the church and ultimately the question is are you going to obey the church or not? If you’re Catholic, you obey the Magisterium. Period. Even if you feel the church has changed its teachings somewhat.To argue “this is not infallible”; “that’s not dogma”; “it’s just the pope’s opinion” or “saints make mistakes” are all statements of the obvious, but they don’t change the reality. Authority has spoken. In order to remain united to a family, one must stop competing with legitimate authority in that family. To continue to compete is to act like an adolescent. Adolescents compete with legitimate authority at home and school. It’s part of the process of growing up. Eventually they learn that they have only two choices, assent or move out.
Br. JR, OSF
I have come a long way and I am 90% there.
J
JReducation
Guest
You sound like St. Francis.
St. Francis always taught us that we have to allow God to find us. When he finds us, then we allow him to lead us. He leads us to the lepers. He will always lead is to those places where charity and kindness are needed the most.
Francis was one who would get very upset with a lot of the questioning and debating that goes on in these fora. Yet, he became the Mirror of Perfection or as Pope Pius XII called him, the Perfect Christian. Pope Benedict referred to him as the Living First Beatitude.
It’s really a question of where do we want to go? Do we want to go to this space where everything is perfectly clear and understood or do we want to go to that place where Christ is most needed, even though the questions around us remain and Nero is playing his harp as Rome burns? Francis always said, “Let Nero play.” Big deal. God knows what he’s doing.
It’s funny, because for all the talking that we do about being adults, especially in this country, we are not very grown up when it comes to our Catholic faith. A real adult in the faith is like a trusting child. Just look at the tradition of the saints.This really works for me. Honestly, I could care less about the Church clarifying things later on. I see the Holy Spirit as guiding the church and ultimately the question is are you going to obey the church or not? If you’re Catholic, you obey the Magisterium. Period. Even if you feel the church has changed its teachings somewhat.
I have come a long way and I am 90% there.
For example, I studied Aquinas for many years. I went through 10 years of seminary. But what I learned from Aquinas that really stuck was his gentleness, his sense of humor, his great humility, and his self-awareness. Aquinas did not see himself and his work as we do. It was not the last word on everything from the Eucharist to marriage. He came at things from a very different perspective. I learned that and loved it about him.
Aquinas dearly loved Dominic. For him, Dominic was his hero. Dominic told his brothers to do three things: 1) be humble; 2) be kind to everyone and 3) be preachers. Aquinas set out to do just that. He was very humble. He was very kind to everyone, even those with whom he disagreed. He wrote for the benefit of preachers. He was always thinking about the other person, not about himself, nor about some abstract. He hoped that his writings would inspire great love for God and man, not that they be used as hatchets to cut people down.
Aquinas was a real adult Christian, because he was almost childlike in his simplicity. The great understanding that the Lord gave him had a purpose. For Aquinas that purpose was to do what Dominic has commanded: be humble, be kind, and preach . . . but always with great respect for the listener.
I feel very much like you and Aquinas. If the Church says “Stand on your head.” I ask myself whether it’s a sin or not. If it’s not a sin, I stand on my head. It’s rather interesting, because Aquinas wrote many things that he did not follow. His superiors or the Church did not endorse them. That’s how simple and faithful he was. We have lost sight of that simplicity, which is really a sign of spiritual adulthood. An adult is a reasonable person, not a rebellious adolescent.
The reason that we have lost sight of this is because we have lost contact with the tradition of the saints.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
po18guy
Well-known member
Maybe not, but obedience is always possible, always produces unity, and works each and every time it is applied to a given situation. It is irreplaceable in a hierarchical organization, whose founder epitomizes obedience - even unto death.
P
pnewton
Guest
What does this have to do with anything, anything at all. Your Patriarch Gregorios III was not chosen of the Holy Spirit to lead the Catholic Church. I for one am sick of the gossips and slanders who continue to sling mud at the Blessed John Paul II on this issue. First, there is no indication that he knew it was a Koran, or what exactly he was doing. Second, even if he was aware of the he was surely within his right to use this as an expression of appreciation for a gift, following local custom. Thanks be to God that He sees not as Man sees. The late pontiff has been elevated to a place among the Blessed. I care a great deal more about what God thinks of him than what his detractors, on both sides, think.
As this issue came up again, here is a link explaining a more logical and less slanderous view of this event.
jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html
J
JReducation
Guest
I disagree with Akin’s assessment of the situation. I think that he speculates a great deal. However, what else can a blogger do? He does not have the pope in front of him to ask him.
That being said, we do know some things about Bl. John Paul that Akins mentions as well. He was a man of peace. He lived through the rise and fall of Nazism and Communism. He saw the evil of division. He was determined to promote unity and peace.
We also know that he had great respect for the Muslim people. In fact, every pope from Bl. John XXIII to Benedict XVI have displayed respect and affection for the Muslim people. There is no reason to ignore the possibility that the famous kiss was a sign of affection for a people, not a book. We know that he had no love for the USA, but he loved the people of the USA. In his mind, he was able to separate people from errors. That’s something that only saints do well. The rest of us muddle through that.
Bl. John Paul also knew that the Eastern Christians were not always victims. The Eastern people, Muslims, Jews and Christians have spent centuries trying to conquer each other and to kill each other. When Iraqi Christians say, “He stepped on our neck”, the clergy, religious and the Vatican take that with a grain of salt. We Christians have done our share of damage to other people too.
This is important. Bl. John Paul, like Bl. John XXIII and Pope Benedict XVI are very knowledgeable of Christian history. They are very strong in the area of Theology of History. It means that they know the history of the Church and the world in which the Church has developed. They also know how to read the presence of God in history and the sinfulness of man. The good thing about theology is that unlike the secular study of history, theology neither takes sides nor rewrites the facts. What it does is to attempt to see how God makes himself present despite our sinfulness throughout our history and how God makes himself present through history.
With this background, ,men like Bl. John XXIII, Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict, may very well kiss the Qur’an, take their shoes off to enter a mosque to pray or preside at a Shabbat service for Jewish refugees as Cardinal Roncalli did for over a year during WW II. They have a knowledge that the average man in the pew does not have. They can put their finger on God’s presence in human history and they can put their finger on man’s weaknesses. They can say, with certain precision, what is or is not pleasing to God in this moment in history, without violating what came before.
It’s important to understand that what came before responded to a question and a situation. When the situation changes, the answer has to change. When Muslims were attacking Christian Europe from all sides, that was very different from that day when Muslims did something that they had never done before. They welcomed the pope among them. They invited him to their mosque. Many Christians don’t realize that in some Muslim circles, only Muslims can enter mosques. There is not a open invitation to all non-Muslims.
The pope is actually staying within tradition by responding to a change of heart on the part of the Muslims toward the papacy with a sign of affection. Our faith tradition has never said that we deny love, kindness, affection and respect to those who are trying to move closer to us.
Bl. John Paul went to the East with historical knowledge and with an awareness of the sins on both sides, as well as an openness to peace between East and West, and Muslims, Christians and Jews. And he was probably believed that it was good for the Eastern Christians if the Catholic pope won the hearts of the Muslim people, rather than offend them or antagonize them. In the end, the pope goes back to Rome and the Eastern Christians have to stay there. To leave the Muslims with a warm feeling toward the Catholic Church would not hurt the Eastern Catholics at all, if they were smart enough to take advantage of the moment instead of whining about stepping on their neck.
We have a long tradition of very powerful attempts made at reconciliation between different populations and a long tradition of people sabotaging those attempts because they cannot let go of their prejudices. I guess even destructive prejudice can be part of tradition.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
This is an important question from the POV of culture as a whole. We should remember that Eastern Christians in the Middle East suffered greatly under the Ottoman Empire at the hands of Turks and others who were simply looking for an “excuse” to torture and kill them (unless, of course, they became Muslim).These other folks have a right not to do so. Their exercise of this right does not imply that the pope’s choice was a sinful choice.
Why are you even bothering bringing this up? This question was addressed by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints and they found nothing immoral in this action. The Congregations’ findings was sent to a committee of Cardinal theologians for verification. They found nothing immoral here. That was sent to the Holy Father. He found nothing immoral here. Popes do not err in making judgments on matters of faith and morals. They sin. But this is Pope Benedict making the final call on something that Bl. John Paul II did. Pope Benedict cannot err on this judgment. If he could, then his judgment on matters of morals is not protected by the Holy Spirit.
Just because other people, including Patriarchs would not do it, does not mean that the person who did it committed a sin. Both parties are free to act according to conscience as long as conscience is well informed. This means that conscience must be consistent with the mind of the Church. The mind of the Church on this matter is that there is no objective sin involved in this action, because it was a sign of respect and gratitude for an act of kindness toward the pope. The Holy See’s response to this was very simple and succinct. Bl. John Paul loved humanity. He took advantage of every opportunity to show his love and his appreciation for human beings. Therefore, the Church finds no fault in this.
Even your Patriarch will not join in this disapproval. He may say that it is an action that he would not do. That’s acceptable. He will not say that this is an action on the part of Bl. John Paul of which he disapproves, because that means breaking communion with what the Holy Father has already dismissed. Once the Holy Father dismisses an action as irrelevant, the bishops and patriarchs are bound to do the same.
The question is why are you bringing this up? What do you want us to learn from this? What is it about Bl. John Paul that you’re trying to teach the Universal Church that she does not already know? Do you know something that she does not know or is it that you disapprove and want the Church to join you in your disapproval? If that’s the case, you may want to join another Church that is not the Catholic Church, because she’s not going to join you there.
The latest new out of the Vatican is that the canonization will happen in less than five years. There are several other miracles that are already under study and apparently very credible.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Thus, having a Muslim dhikr or rosary was considered a sign that the one holding it was, in fact, a Muslim. When that person said they were a Christian, that was interpreted to mean they were now trying to deny Islam, the penalty for which was/is death. There were a few Orthodox new martyrs who were killed because they sang Muslim prayers or some other such thing that was sufficient evidence to put them on the slippery path to martyrdom.
So from that Eastern Christian POV, to kiss the Q’uran would really be “asking for it” in that context.
It was/is already difficult living as a Christian under an Islamist rule where Christians had to wear five-pound wooden neck crosses, wear bells on their clothing and ride their donkeys facing backwards. To actually kiss the Q’uran under one’s own volition . . . that would be unthinkable so our brother Steve is actually quite right to voice his concern.
I’m NOT being critical of Blessed John Paul for kissing the Q’uran. I only wish to show how, in another cultural context, such an act would constitute a clear invitation to martyrdom and not to the spreading of international peace and harmony.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Chris is not doing any mud-slinging at all - he is only responding from within the Middle Eastern EC context and he is more than correct. (And the Holy Spirit chose HB Patriarch Gregorios to lead the Melkite Particular Church, BTW).
Blessed John Paul did indeed know that what he was kissing was a Q’uran and he made a point of showing respect to Islam - I don’t, and cannot, find fault with that.
But only he, as Pope, could do such a thing and get away wth it. If you or I were Christians in the Middle East and did that, there would be consequences. For one thing, you and I would, from that point on, be considered as Muslims.
And when we would protest that we are Christians, that would make our situation even worse.
Alex
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I am sorry, friend, but you are mistaken. Here is an explanation form Dietrich von Hildebrand:
You see, “non-infallible” does not mean “optional”
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Well, as a general principle, saints can do things that can meet with general, even ecclesial, disapproval and still remain saints. We only need to look at the record of such saints as Aquinas on the sinlessness of the Mother of God to realize this.These other folks have a right not to do so. Their exercise of this right does not imply that the pope’s choice was a sinful choice.
Why are you even bothering bringing this up? This question was addressed by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints and they found nothing immoral in this action. The Congregations’ findings was sent to a committee of Cardinal theologians for verification. They found nothing immoral here. That was sent to the Holy Father. He found nothing immoral here. Popes do not err in making judgments on matters of faith and morals. They sin. But this is Pope Benedict making the final call on something that Bl. John Paul II did. Pope Benedict cannot err on this judgment. If he could, then his judgment on matters of morals is not protected by the Holy Spirit.
Just because other people, including Patriarchs would not do it, does not mean that the person who did it committed a sin. Both parties are free to act according to conscience as long as conscience is well informed. This means that conscience must be consistent with the mind of the Church. The mind of the Church on this matter is that there is no objective sin involved in this action, because it was a sign of respect and gratitude for an act of kindness toward the pope. The Holy See’s response to this was very simple and succinct. Bl. John Paul loved humanity. He took advantage of every opportunity to show his love and his appreciation for human beings. Therefore, the Church finds no fault in this.
Even your Patriarch will not join in this disapproval. He may say that it is an action that he would not do. That’s acceptable. He will not say that this is an action on the part of Bl. John Paul of which he disapproves, because that means breaking communion with what the Holy Father has already dismissed. Once the Holy Father dismisses an action as irrelevant, the bishops and patriarchs are bound to do the same.
The question is why are you bringing this up? What do you want us to learn from this? What is it about Bl. John Paul that you’re trying to teach the Universal Church that she does not already know? Do you know something that she does not know or is it that you disapprove and want the Church to join you in your disapproval? If that’s the case, you may want to join another Church that is not the Catholic Church, because she’s not going to join you there.
The latest new out of the Vatican is that the canonization will happen in less than five years. There are several other miracles that are already under study and apparently very credible.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Chris is within his rights to critique the liturgical changes in the Latin Church and he does so from within his own unique EC perspective with its tremendous focus on “lex orandi, lex credendi.” This is why EC’s don’t like to mess with ancient liturgical wording or disciplines.
I myself struggled for a long time over Blessed John Paul’s openness to the Eastern Churches and his continued refusal to acknowledge the UGCC as a patriarchate, even after he said he agreed it should be such.
Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that a patriarchate won’t solve the problems of the UGCC, apart from the political aspects of that issue. I do find a certain disappointment among UGCCers over this matter and Blessed John Paul, especially UGCCers from Poland itself.
But this should never cloud one’s celebration of the life of Bl John Paul and the tremendous impact he had on the spiritual vision of Catholics and on intercultural and ecclesial relations.
Alex
J
JReducation
Guest
I understand what you’re saying. I have also been trained to detach. Maybe it is because this is a very monastic quality about us. We are taught, from day one, to let go. Once the Church moves on, so do we. The authorities in the Church have certainly moved way past this Qur’an question. It’s time to lay to rest and to glorify God for what he has achieved through the life of Bl. John Paul.
We must never forget that the Church is also an institution or organization. Like every institution, it has people in authority who have the right to make decisions for the whole. They may not be to our taste or our liking, but they do not cease to carry the weight of authority. If you want to belong, you follow the voice of authority. The good thing about the Church is that authority cannot err on matters of faith or morals. In a case such as this, when authority dismisses it, we too can dismiss it. If it were immoral or heretical, Church authority would be unable to dismiss it. The Holy Spirit would intervene.
Maybe what we need is to become more familiar with the great spiritual masters who taught us the value and necessity of detachment, because we tend to become attached to one issue or one question and lose sight of the greater gift before our very eyes.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I
Iotaunum
Guest
( IT SEEMS MY POST IS TOO LONG - I WILL SPLIT IT INTO TWO PARTS)
PART 1:
I haven’t commented on this forum in a while since many of the issues are at the core the same old - same old. It all really boils down to the issues being discussed here - i.e. what one considers to be authoritative and the “correct” interpretation of a particular ruling or statement from the Holy See and Church Councils.
One of the things I have noticed many Catholics today saying is; “where is that in the Bible?” when talking about certain issues - even the most basic beliefs of the faith (Mass, Purgatory, indulgences etc). This is obviously annoying since even most protestants know that Catholics do not hold Sola Scriptura and many beliefs come from Tradition. It can also therefore be frustrating, as the original poster mentioned, when Catholics question certain laws, customs and traditional theology on the grounds that they cannot find it explicitly stated in a solemn Papal declaration/pronouncement. On the other hand we have many more Catholics - and I find this is the larger of the categories - who say:* “Pope ……… Said …………. Therefore the matter is finished”* - in a sort of twisted and misunderstood interpretation of “Rome has spoken the matter is finished”. So on one hand we have those who do/believe what they want until the Pope infallibly states otherwise, and on the other we have those who will do/believe almost anything that the Pope says as Gospel truth and infallible. Both positions run contrary to those held by the vast majority of saints, theologians and even Popes throughout the entire history of the Church.
There is no doubt that we have been living in a great crisis since Vatican II which only continues to worsen. This is not a “glass half full/half empty” take on things, it is a general objective look at the statistics and the beliefs of the Catholic on the street, so to speak. The situation is dire indeed, whether or not one believes the council and its liberal forces were responsible. No good will come from trying to “look on the bright side” etc. The fact that the faith is attacked on all sides today like never before is evident.
PART 1:
I haven’t commented on this forum in a while since many of the issues are at the core the same old - same old. It all really boils down to the issues being discussed here - i.e. what one considers to be authoritative and the “correct” interpretation of a particular ruling or statement from the Holy See and Church Councils.
One of the things I have noticed many Catholics today saying is; “where is that in the Bible?” when talking about certain issues - even the most basic beliefs of the faith (Mass, Purgatory, indulgences etc). This is obviously annoying since even most protestants know that Catholics do not hold Sola Scriptura and many beliefs come from Tradition. It can also therefore be frustrating, as the original poster mentioned, when Catholics question certain laws, customs and traditional theology on the grounds that they cannot find it explicitly stated in a solemn Papal declaration/pronouncement. On the other hand we have many more Catholics - and I find this is the larger of the categories - who say:* “Pope ……… Said …………. Therefore the matter is finished”* - in a sort of twisted and misunderstood interpretation of “Rome has spoken the matter is finished”. So on one hand we have those who do/believe what they want until the Pope infallibly states otherwise, and on the other we have those who will do/believe almost anything that the Pope says as Gospel truth and infallible. Both positions run contrary to those held by the vast majority of saints, theologians and even Popes throughout the entire history of the Church.
There is no doubt that we have been living in a great crisis since Vatican II which only continues to worsen. This is not a “glass half full/half empty” take on things, it is a general objective look at the statistics and the beliefs of the Catholic on the street, so to speak. The situation is dire indeed, whether or not one believes the council and its liberal forces were responsible. No good will come from trying to “look on the bright side” etc. The fact that the faith is attacked on all sides today like never before is evident.
I
Iotaunum
Guest
PART 2:
So the crux of the matter is: Does the Church in its official teaching and the writings of the sacred congregations and the Pope demand the assent of all Catholics? Yes. Does the Church have authority to command and rule in her Pope and Bishops even when infallibility is not invoked? - There can be no question. Is the Pope always infallible? No. Has any Pope ever taught error or heresy or believed it himself? No doubt as history proves - even Pope Adrian VI said: (as te Catholic Encyclopedia quotes) *““If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decree. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII”. *Pope Adrian II also says that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings.” Another well know quote is that of Pius IX to a Bishop where he was asked by the Bishop (around the time Papal infallibility was defined) what Catholics would do if a future pope would be a heretic and “teach contrary to the Catholic Faith” - the Pope replied *“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” *So while the Pope and Bishops even when not teaching infallibly should be obeyed by Catholics it is also “beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith” and teach heresy, as the Popes have stated. Now this does not mean everyone can become a mini magisterial to himself, deciphering which of the Popes statements are authoritative. This undermines the authority that Christ set up completely. The problem stems nowadays with ignorance. 99% of the time ignorance in matter of the faith leads to people going astray.
Does someone not know they must by divine ordinance obey their lawful authorities? Then they are ignorant of their faith. Does another person hold that the Pope and bishops must be obeyed in all things - even those concerning the faith? Then he is as ignorant as the first. Both misunderstandings lead to the confusion which prevails today. That is why when we judge, we do not judge the “person” but the acts/teachings objectively. Has a Catholic said the Bible alone is the Sole rule of Faith and practice - if so he is a material heretic. He believes/teaches/professed “objective” heresy. This we can judge clearly according to the teaching of the Church. However we do not judge his person. De internis ecclesia no judica. We do not know his motives: was he mislead, did he neglect to study his faith, did he learn from liberals/heretics. His internal mind can be judged by God alone. However the error comes in when Catholics judge the first objective material part and are wrongfully accused of “judging others”. This again stems from ignorance. They would happily let all manor of heresies grow and be believed, while no one is a heretic because he “doesn’t know” or “is genuine in his beliefs” etc.
So there is error on both sides. Catholics must obey the Bishops and Popes in all matters, except when they explicitly contradict what has always been taught/condemned by all of the Popes and magisterial in the Past. Only a knowledge of the faith will allow one to do this. Ignorance causes the confusion. This does not mean that everyone has to be a theologian, for there are people who object to the post concilliar direction of the Church away from traditional doctrine even though they left school barely able to read and write. I know this to be a fact myself.
Minimism, that is believing and accepting only those things taught explicitly and infallibly, is an error so incompatible with the Church’s God given authority that it almost denies it ipso facto. It leads to the outright rejection of certain doctrines held by nearly all saints and theologians (such as limbo) since there is no infallible confirmation issued explicitly by a Pope. On the other hand believing everything and following every command/example of the upper hierarchy is not in keeping with the authority Christ delegated to his Church. There is no simple, short cut way of wading through the confusion, but basically we should believe and follow the Pope in all things EXCEPT when the Church has condemned it consistently in the past and taught/held the contrary for almost her entire history.
So the crux of the matter is: Does the Church in its official teaching and the writings of the sacred congregations and the Pope demand the assent of all Catholics? Yes. Does the Church have authority to command and rule in her Pope and Bishops even when infallibility is not invoked? - There can be no question. Is the Pope always infallible? No. Has any Pope ever taught error or heresy or believed it himself? No doubt as history proves - even Pope Adrian VI said: (as te Catholic Encyclopedia quotes) *““If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decree. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII”. *Pope Adrian II also says that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings.” Another well know quote is that of Pius IX to a Bishop where he was asked by the Bishop (around the time Papal infallibility was defined) what Catholics would do if a future pope would be a heretic and “teach contrary to the Catholic Faith” - the Pope replied *“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” *So while the Pope and Bishops even when not teaching infallibly should be obeyed by Catholics it is also “beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith” and teach heresy, as the Popes have stated. Now this does not mean everyone can become a mini magisterial to himself, deciphering which of the Popes statements are authoritative. This undermines the authority that Christ set up completely. The problem stems nowadays with ignorance. 99% of the time ignorance in matter of the faith leads to people going astray.
Does someone not know they must by divine ordinance obey their lawful authorities? Then they are ignorant of their faith. Does another person hold that the Pope and bishops must be obeyed in all things - even those concerning the faith? Then he is as ignorant as the first. Both misunderstandings lead to the confusion which prevails today. That is why when we judge, we do not judge the “person” but the acts/teachings objectively. Has a Catholic said the Bible alone is the Sole rule of Faith and practice - if so he is a material heretic. He believes/teaches/professed “objective” heresy. This we can judge clearly according to the teaching of the Church. However we do not judge his person. De internis ecclesia no judica. We do not know his motives: was he mislead, did he neglect to study his faith, did he learn from liberals/heretics. His internal mind can be judged by God alone. However the error comes in when Catholics judge the first objective material part and are wrongfully accused of “judging others”. This again stems from ignorance. They would happily let all manor of heresies grow and be believed, while no one is a heretic because he “doesn’t know” or “is genuine in his beliefs” etc.
So there is error on both sides. Catholics must obey the Bishops and Popes in all matters, except when they explicitly contradict what has always been taught/condemned by all of the Popes and magisterial in the Past. Only a knowledge of the faith will allow one to do this. Ignorance causes the confusion. This does not mean that everyone has to be a theologian, for there are people who object to the post concilliar direction of the Church away from traditional doctrine even though they left school barely able to read and write. I know this to be a fact myself.
Minimism, that is believing and accepting only those things taught explicitly and infallibly, is an error so incompatible with the Church’s God given authority that it almost denies it ipso facto. It leads to the outright rejection of certain doctrines held by nearly all saints and theologians (such as limbo) since there is no infallible confirmation issued explicitly by a Pope. On the other hand believing everything and following every command/example of the upper hierarchy is not in keeping with the authority Christ delegated to his Church. There is no simple, short cut way of wading through the confusion, but basically we should believe and follow the Pope in all things EXCEPT when the Church has condemned it consistently in the past and taught/held the contrary for almost her entire history.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is well written. The good thing is that none of our popes during the last 150 years, maybe more, have taught heresy. They have been very careful when teaching something that may be different from that of their predecessors to understand what their predecessors were speaking about and to avoid denying what they taught. To simpligy matters, the prudent thing to do is to follow the popes and the bishops when they command with authority unless they command sin. No one has the authority to command sin.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The_Reginator
Active member
A slight digression here:The good thing about the Church is that authority cannot err on matters of faith or morals. In a case such as this, when authority dismisses it, we too can dismiss it. If it were immoral or heretical, Church authority would be unable to dismiss it. The Holy Spirit would intervene.
Br. JR, OSF
This piqued my interested Brother. (Not that I haven’t been interested in the rest of the thread.)
I trust and believe that the Holy Spirit would intervene, but do we know of any examples where it is obvious that He changed some heretical (or immoral) proposed Church teaching?
Thanks, Reg.
J
JReducation
Guest
It has never happened. Popes can be heretics in their personal beliefs We’ve had two cases that we know of for sure. But when they speak authoritatively, they cannot speak heresy. For example, a pope may say something such as “I’m of the idea that Mary had other children after Jesus.” OK, that’s heresy. But it’s also his idea. He’s not speaking to the Church or for the Church. The Holy Spirit has not allowed heretical popes teach their heresies as doctrines. I’m not sure if that helps. I hope so.
In the case of a beatification, there is a whole process that is very intense and has many layers through which the Church speaks with authority. This is important to understand. Very often we think of Church and authority as the pope. That is true. However, there are many commissions, dicastries, sacred congregations, commissions and other bodies that the pope authorizes to speak for him or to whom the pope listens and affirms them with his authority.
In this case, there is the promoter of the cause, the Defender of the Faith (formerly known as the Devil’s Advocate), and the the Cardinal theologians. These are not isolated individuals. These are teams of people empowered by the pope to do this work. When the final recommendation reaches his desk, that being that he beatify or canonize, it carries a lot of weight, because the pope himself commissioned them make this recommendation to him.
Because they are acting in the name of the Church, they are protected from error. The final confirmation of this comes when the pope puts his signature to the final document. The pope cannot dismiss a heresy. Joseph Ratzinger can, but not Pope Benedict. Even if a heresy by our dear John Paul II slipped under the radar, once it got to the pope’s desk, it would become visible to the pontiff. He’s not looking at this report and all of this work as a private citizen or an individual theologian. He’s looking at it from the Chair of Peter. That’s one of the reasons why the law requires miracles after the death of the person.
The absence of a miracle does not mean that someone is not in heaven. However, the presence of a miracle is a sure confirmation. The only times that heretics go to heaven are when they are unaware that they are in heresy. However, the Church will not hold them up for veneration or as role models. That will be intercepted by the Holy Spirit. It has never happened that a heretic was beatified or canonized.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The_Reginator
Active member
That’s what I was looking for!It has never happened. Popes can be heretics in their personal beliefs We’ve had two cases that we know of for sure. But when they speak authoritatively, they cannot speak heresy. For example, a pope may say something such as “I’m of the idea that Mary had other children after Jesus.” OK, that’s heresy. But it’s also his idea. He’s not speaking to the Church or for the Church. The Holy Spirit has not allowed heretical popes teach their heresies as doctrines. I’m not sure if that helps. I hope so.
In the case of a beatification, there is a whole process that is very intense and has many layers through which the Church speaks with authority. This is important to understand. Very often we think of Church and authority as the pope. That is true. However, there are many commissions, dicastries, sacred congregations, commissions and other bodies that the pope authorizes to speak for him or to whom the pope listens and affirms them with his authority.
In this case, there is the promoter of the cause, the Defender of the Faith (formerly known as the Devil’s Advocate), and the the Cardinal theologians. These are not isolated individuals. These are teams of people empowered by the pope to do this work. When the final recommendation reaches his desk, that being that he beatify or canonize, it carries a lot of weight, because the pope himself commissioned them make this recommendation to him.
Because they are acting in the name of the Church, they are protected from error. The final confirmation of this comes when the pope puts his signature to the final document. The pope cannot dismiss a heresy. Joseph Ratzinger can, but not Pope Benedict. Even if a heresy by our dear John Paul II slipped under the radar, once it got to the pope’s desk, it would become visible to the pontiff. He’s not looking at this report and all of this work as a private citizen or an individual theologian. He’s looking at it from the Chair of Peter. That’s one of the reasons why the law requires miracles after the death of the person.
The absence of a miracle does not mean that someone is not in heaven. However, the presence of a miracle is a sure confirmation. The only times that heretics go to heaven are when they are unaware that they are in heresy. However, the Church will not hold them up for veneration or as role models. That will be intercepted by the Holy Spirit. It has never happened that a heretic was beatified or canonized.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Thanks.
Dominus tecum!
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
One would hope, however, that the sheer weight of the bureaucracy entrusted with reviewing the life of a candidate for sainthood is not the actual or sole guarantor of the Church’s indefectibility in this regard.
I think a St Francis and others would balk at such a bureaucratic (and expensive) process which seems to smack of a certain Western realisim and even rationalism.
And such an institutionalized canonization process has been seen as being unspiritual by saints such as St Bruno (who forbade members of his Order from ever having to undergo a canonization process). He himself was simply placed in the calendar of Saints as per the practice of the first millennium of the Church.
There is perhaps a greater urgency to review the writings and other expressions of the thought of a candidate who was a Pope.
But does this not bespeak of a desire to show that he was perfectly orthodox across the board, publicly and in his personal life? Would not the slightest “tinge of heresy” prevent his canonization in modern times? I believe it most certainly would.
This thread does, however, lie at the heart of church reunion. For example, the break between East and West rests, from the POV of Eastern Orthodoxy, on the conclusion that the Roman Church fell into heresy with the Filioque and only compounded the problems in successive centuries.
Perhaps the issue of how dogma is mediated and expressed, with its concomitant myriad of possibilities for misinterpretation is the route for ecumenical commissions and church councils in future.
When the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox commission began hammering out their misunderstanding of Christology, the reason for their mutual estrangement in history, they soon realized that they actually believed the same thing, but expressed it using a different terminology that was misinterpreted by either side.
Alex
I think a St Francis and others would balk at such a bureaucratic (and expensive) process which seems to smack of a certain Western realisim and even rationalism.
And such an institutionalized canonization process has been seen as being unspiritual by saints such as St Bruno (who forbade members of his Order from ever having to undergo a canonization process). He himself was simply placed in the calendar of Saints as per the practice of the first millennium of the Church.
There is perhaps a greater urgency to review the writings and other expressions of the thought of a candidate who was a Pope.
But does this not bespeak of a desire to show that he was perfectly orthodox across the board, publicly and in his personal life? Would not the slightest “tinge of heresy” prevent his canonization in modern times? I believe it most certainly would.
This thread does, however, lie at the heart of church reunion. For example, the break between East and West rests, from the POV of Eastern Orthodoxy, on the conclusion that the Roman Church fell into heresy with the Filioque and only compounded the problems in successive centuries.
Perhaps the issue of how dogma is mediated and expressed, with its concomitant myriad of possibilities for misinterpretation is the route for ecumenical commissions and church councils in future.
When the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox commission began hammering out their misunderstanding of Christology, the reason for their mutual estrangement in history, they soon realized that they actually believed the same thing, but expressed it using a different terminology that was misinterpreted by either side.
Alex
J
JReducation
Guest
The beurocracy is not that new. I was in place by the 11th century. The reason for it was the size of the Church. People were not within reasonable distance from the Holy See so that the pope knew these people personally.
Others might, but St. Francis would not. Francis vowed blind obedience to the pope and bound his sons to blind obedience to him under penalty of excommunnication. We don’t even go there when these things happen. If that’s how the Church wants it and the canonical successor of Francis assents, the rest of us assent. Those who do not assent are severely disciplined. It’s a matter of submission to authority in all things but sin.
This is no longer the case, even for the Carthusians. The Church was able to get around St. Bruno, because fortunately, St. Bruno never wrote a canonically approved rule. The Carthusians are governed by statutes that St. Bruno wrote and they modify through a democratic process. The five orders that have rule cannot do tis. We’re bound by them. We can only add and delete what is not in the rule. What IS in the rule cannot be touched. It takes a papal decree to touch a rule.
There is an interest in reviewing their writings to prove fidelity to the faith. The pope can dispense with this. This was done for all of the early Franciscans. The popes canonized them based on their friendship with them. They knew them personally for so many years tha tthey had no doubts.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status