Can a pope try to play legalism to push liberal doctrines in

[workinprogress]

I understand that Quo Primum, though it said that mass could not legally be changed by any pope, could be changed because Quo Primum was not infallible itself. Oddly, it was a book by Michael Davies that pointed that out. Not that I am recommending his kind of literature. I’m not saying it was a liberal plot by Bugnini and Masons that helped reign in the 1970 missal [because it was necessary for Catholics to hear the ways people can be saved or that Jews are not Christ-killers because apparently all that was used (though probably abused by people looking to bully someone) out of context], but is it possible for a pope to sneak in likely inadvisable, though valid, liberal measures like women priests or something? Could the wool be pulled over our eyes with fancy canonical maneuvering? Can loopholes be put in that would not produce a document that would directly destroy the Church, as a pope cannot by supernatural safeguards do, but would allow theologians, clergy, and school instructors of Catholic schools to teach their agenda? Could a pope deemphasize a controversial doctrine or not defend it, thus giving radicals an easy ride into the minds of Catholics who assume the pope oks it by silence?

I don’t want to imply that any of this is happening. This is all hypothetical. I have trouble swallowing the conspiracies of ultra-traditionalists anymore (don’t read their stuff and don’t be blind but don’t go looking for conspiracies either because it makes you intellectually blind to truth when it’s presented) as likely but, as a possibility, I’m not sure yet. Thanks to level-headed truly obedient traditionalists such as those of the FSSP and the book (I don’t know about the author though, despite his books about wording loopholes in the Vatican 2 documents and a Protestant-looking mass, I believe I heard him say that, because of Ecclesia Dei, priests CAN celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Latin) I mentioned earlier, I’ve accepted Vatican 2 and the 1970 missal (even in English) as not invalid or intrinsically dangerous to the Faith or the faithful (at least not on paper, in that the way it’s celebrated in too many parishes has been penetrated by Protestant, artistic license of the priest and/or PC innovations in art, music and architecture).
In other words, the Pope might not be able to validly or licitly bring about women priests but could he use loopholes or look the other way or is Catholic media too wise and prevalent to let one be that sneaky? Man, I hope we get a pope that is conservative in difficult doctrines/dogmas and morals and liberal in the charity with which he presents those doctrines and the love he shows to people in general–but especially the first part.

Thanks!

 

[DavidFilmer]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

… Is it possible for a pope to sneak in likely inadvisable, though valid, liberal measures like women priests or something

That would not be a valid measure. The Magesterium has already defined that the Church lacks the ability to ordain women. That can NEVER change, PERIOD. It is impossible for any Pope to change this by any means.
work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

Could a pope deemphasize a controversial doctrine or not defend it, thus giving radicals an easy ride into the minds of Catholics who assume the pope oks it by silence?

Absolutely (and this sort of thing has happened many times). Jesus only promised that the Church would not formally teach error. He did not promise that the Pope or Magesterium would teach what ought to be taught, when it ought to be taught.

After Vatican II, many liberals introduced unfounded ideas "in the 'spirit" of Vatican II.’ Many traditional Catholics complained the Magesterium was (and, in some cases, still is) too slow to react, thus encouraging these liberal views. So, yes, this sort of thing happens.

 

[Ahimsa]

DavidFilmer:

That would not be a valid measure. The Magesterium has already defined that the Church lacks the ability to ordain women. That can NEVER change, PERIOD. It is impossible for any Pope to change this by any means.

Could Jesus Himself change things such that women could be ordained?

 

[RSiscoe]

I think the question you are asking is this: Is it possible for a Pope to stand idly by and allow the wolves to devour the flock? Is it possible for a Pope to not intervene if a bad Bishop began ordaining wormen, etc.?

Yes, these things are possible. It is possible for a Pope to not do what he should do. The only thing that is not possible is for a Pope to define a doctrine of faith or morals that is false. God will not allow that. Anything else is possible.

In fact, it is even possible for a Pope to teach error himself. Papal Infallibility only applies when a Pope is defining a doctrine of faith or morals. If a Pope is not defining a doctrine it is certainly possible for them to err.

Some people have been led to believe that Papal Infallibility means that a Pope is infallible when speaking on faith or morals. That is not correct. A Pope is only infallible when he is defining a doctrine of faith or morals, and meets the 4 conditions given at Vatian I. Any other time he is not protected by the charism of infallibility.

That does not mean we are to pay no attention to what they say; it just means that it is possible for them to err - especially if they are teaching something contrary to what the Church has always taught.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Ahimsa:

Could Jesus Himself change things such that women could be ordained?

The Church has never said that women cannot be ordained. She has said that the Church lacks the ability to ordain women. We do not know whether women lack Sacramental capacity for Holy Orders.

Since the ability to ordain comes from Jesus, in theory, He could of course change it (assuming women possess the capacity - which we do not know) - although He has never done anything like this before, obviously.

However, it would be logically problematic. The Truth of the Church is eternal - it does not “change with the times.” If Our Lord changed some aspect of it, it presumes the Church was deficient before. Why change it now? Does this not imply that it was not set up properly to begin with? That would mean the Church that He estabilshed was flawed (because if it wasn’t flawed then it wouldn’t need to be changed).

So, although Jesus COULD, it’s pretty certain that He WON’T (just like he could but won’t override your free will, etc).

 

[workinprogress]

The city newspaper said that the Pope believed that it was a doctrine and said that doctrines are not infallible (I never seem to get straight which documents are infallible). I hear on EWTN that it never could happen that women could be priests. Is the argument that Jesus did not ordain women something that goes back to an earlier precedent in the way that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchiezedek (who, with his unbloody offerings, came before the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood who had to make bloody offerings)?

It’s funny that some feminists believe St. John in The Last Supper scene was Mary Magdalene. Well, if that were so, a woman did not become a Pope–something women or feminists claiming to represent women would want if they invalidly and illicitly became priests, bishops, archbishops and then cardinals in a twisted future under a pope that would make Pope John 23rd and all other popes and their right-hand men look like Pope Pius X and his to ultratraditionalists in comparison (laughing). Feminists say that John loved Jesus the most so it’s all about love and women can love God as much as men and should thus be able to get closer to God in the way Holy Orders can bring them if only allowed. The only problem is, it was the fiery zealot, Peter, who was deemed best by God to become the first head of the Church. He received the right answer to Jesus’s question from the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is not one’s loveableness that makes one a good cleric. It’s not always one’s holiness, wisdom, knowledge piety or leadership skills either–it’s who the Holy Spirit decides and God moves in mysterious ways.
It just happens to be a countercultural way in these times. But modernist societies have come (Rome was like the world today) and gone and the Church is still here despite enemies within and without and will be here whether 2/3rds or more jump off and fall to hell in defiance pulling others down with them (depending on whether their jumping off and falling warrants hell, of course). Thanks be to God I am Catholic and a loyal one in recent years at that! Now I just need to work at my relationship with all 3 persons of God, with Mary and with the other heavenly host.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Can a pope try to play legalism to push liberal doctrines in?

what do you mean by legalism?

there doesn’t appear to be anything sneaky or underhanded in using exisitng laws to take action on issues that you think are important

 

[DavidFilmer]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

The city newspaper said that the Pope believed that it was a doctrine and said that doctrines are not infallible (I never seem to get straight which documents are infallible). I hear on EWTN that it never could happen that women could be priests

Never trust the newspaper when it speaks of Catholic doctrine. EWTN, of course, is usually correct, and they were likewise correct when they stated that the Church could NEVER ordain women and this could NEVER change. Married priests? Yes (though unlikely). Women priests? Never (completely impossible).

Pope John Paul II issued *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, *which held that the Church could not ordain women, but he did not word it with all the necessary criteria for it to be considered an ex Cathedra teaching (JPII never taught ex Cathedra throughout his entire Papacy).

However, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (part of the Ordinary Magesterium, led at that time by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI) confirmed this teaching to be infallable, and “filled in” whatever criteria was absent in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, rendering it infallable. The teaching from (then) Cardinal Ratzinger was proclaimed thus (underlining mine):

CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM Sacerdotalis

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 28, 1995

Question: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, * to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Response: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect