Good Doctrine v. Bad Doctrine

[Valke2]

The Doctrine of transubstantiation became official Church Doctrine on or about 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council. At this same council, convened under Pope Innocent III, a rabid antisemite, the Church decreed that Jews living in Christians lands were required to wear a distintive badge on their clothing at all time.

Is there a process by which the Church seperates actions such as the acceptance of transubstantiation (which caused plenty of problems for the Jews as well) from doctrine that it no longer follows, such as requiring us to wear distinctive badges?

Suppose the Pope today were to say, as Innocent III did, that “Jews, like the fratricide Cain, are doomed to wander about the earth as fugitives and vagabonds, and their faces must be covered with shame.”? Is there some sort of internal policing system within the Church to handle these types of issues?

 

[Montalban]

The Doctrine of transubstantiation became official Church Doctrine on or about 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council. At this same council, convened under Pope Innocent III, a rabid antisemite, the Church decreed that Jews living in Christians lands were required to wear a distintive badge on their clothing at all time.

Is there a process by which the Church seperates actions such as the acceptance of transubstantiation (which caused plenty of problems for the Jews as well) from doctrine that it no longer follows, such as requiring us to wear distinctive badges?

Suppose the Pope today were to say, as Innocent III did, that “Jews, like the fratricide Cain, are doomed to wander about the earth as fugitives and vagabonds, and their faces must be covered with shame.”? Is there some sort of internal policing system within the Church to handle these types of issues?

That would depend on whether you could class the ruling on Jews and their clothes as a ‘doctrine’ for the first example, is certainly different, by being dogma

Funny too that the church would copy Islam on this - for they’d already made Jews and Christians wear distinctive clothing for centuries.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I guess it could be asked how the Church would respond to a tyranical Pope if one was in power today.

Anyone?

 

[Valke2]

I guess it could be asked how the Church would respond to a tyranical Pope if one was in power today.

Anyone?

that’s basically my question.

 

[Allweather]

I guess it could be asked how the Church would respond to a tyranical Pope if one was in power today.

Anyone?

These things usually bubble up from the bottom, rather than being forced down throats from the top. Cases in point, Hitler and Stalin, who merely rode herd on popular energies already in existence. I’ve never understood how any dictator or “tyrannical” ruler would be able to get anything done if he didn’t have substantial support among the people being led.

This would help to answer the question about a tyrannical pope today. I’d say, wouldn’t be possible, given the nature of the Church, its lack of military power, its lack of influence among the most powerful governments which DO have military power, and the general opinion among Catholics that the good ol’ days of a king-making Church are gone, and good riddence.

 

[az_4_faith]

I don’t know anything about that particular situation, but that kind of directive (wearing a badge) by anyone in the church, pope or not, would never be considered doctrine. Transubstantiation is and always has been a truth of the Church - can’t change, can only be explained in a better way.

Wearing a badge, no matter who you are, would never be considered doctrine.

There is no such thing as “bad doctrine” in the Catholic Church.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I guess it could be asked how the Church would respond to a tyranical Pope if one was in power today.

Anyone?

Well, since Popes no longer have governmental authority outside the Vatican, and since there are a lot of things the Pope can’t declare on his own…I really don’t see this being a big issue.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Well, since Popes no longer have governmental authority outside the Vatican, and since there are a lot of things the Pope can’t declare on his own…I really don’t see this being a big issue.

Let’s suppose that the next pope were crooked, and did unholy things. Is there anything that could be done about it?

 

[PaulDupre]

The Doctrine of transubstantiation became official Church Doctrine on or about 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council. At this same council, convened under Pope Innocent III, a rabid antisemite, the Church decreed that Jews living in Christians lands were required to wear a distintive badge on their clothing at all time.

2 things:

1. Wearing or not wearing a certain thing is a discipline, not a doctrine. Disciplines can and do change. Doctrines cannot and do not change. Most problems that people have with Catholicism come from not understanding the difference between doctrine and discipline.
2. The doctrine that the bread and wine consecrated in the mass becomes the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus was taught and believed by the Catholic Church since the 1st century. The descriptive term “Transubstantiation” may have been coined much later, but the belief and teaching has always been there.

Paul

 

[Ilroy]

Let’s suppose that the next pope were crooked, and did unholy things. Is there anything that could be done about it?

Yes, through the grace of God, he could repent of his sins and avail himself of the sacrament of confession…just like the rest of we sinners.

 

[Rocky]

Canons 78 and 79 of the Fourth Lateran Council required both Jews and Muslims living in Christian lands to wear distinctive clothing. I think there were political reasons for this, but is it considered the beginning of overt anti-semitism? I do not know, but suspect there was much anti-semitic feelings before the Fourth Lateran Council.

As to a Pope who might do wicked things, I believe there is no way to unseat him as Pope. However, we know that he would not be able to teach any doctrine that goes against current doctrine. We have the word of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would not permit this. And looking back on the political Popes of the past, they did not teach much of anything. As to Pope Innocent III, what he did teach about the Eucharist was in line with what had been taught from the beginning.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Yes, through the grace of God, he could repent of his sins and avail himself of the sacrament of confession…just like the rest of we sinners.

Let’s suppose he doesn’t repent. Is there a way that a Pope may be removed from his office if he is hurting the Church?

 

[Yerusalyim]

Let’s suppose he doesn’t repent. Is there a way that a Pope may be removed from his office if he is hurting the Church?

I actually do believe there is a process for disposing of a pope, but I really have NO IDEA what that process would be.

As a side note, we’ve had some pretty evil popes a time or two…and some bad ones too often…yet in all that time they never messed with the doctrines of the Church to make what they were doing seem right.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I actually do believe there is a process for disposing of a pope, but I really have NO IDEA what that process would be.

As a side note, we’ve had some pretty evil popes a time or two…and some bad ones too often…yet in all that time they never messed with the doctrines of the Church to make what they were doing seem right.

Certainly, they made new doctrines. But they did hurt the reputation of your Church, leading many to consider becoming Protestant.

 

[Allweather]

A good book on this subject is Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction originally penned in 1999.

It is a brief overview of 30 common misconceptions of the papacy, including such as the so-called “evil” popes like Alexander VI.

When you look at some of the details, you can’t help but be further convinced that God has been guiding this Church along the way.

 

[Ilroy]

Certainly, they made new doctrines. But they did hurt the reputation of your Church, leading many to consider becoming Protestant.

And just what might these “new doctrines” be??? Show the official documents clearly showing these new doctrines. And don’t try to use any of the Dogmatic statements as examples. A Dogmatic statement is just an official clarification of an already existing Doctrine which, because of significant confusion or another serious reason, needed to be made clear to the faithful.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

And just what might these “new doctrines” be??? Show the official documents clearly showing these new doctrines. And don’t try to use any of the Dogmatic statements as examples. A Dogmatic statement is just an official clarification of an already existing Doctrine which, because of significant confusion or another serious reason, needed to be made clear to the faithful.

What ever new doctrines that may have been introduced were no doubt done away with when those wicked men left the Papacy.

 

[Allweather]

Certainly, they made new doctrines. But they did hurt the reputation of your Church, leading many to consider becoming Protestant.

No new doctrines. There have been some people who didn’t like the various Popes. Irritating Popes don’t explain the Prostestant rebellion. There’s a lot more to that. I doubt that most men in 1500 Europe knew very much about the Popes. There was no TV or radio, or newspapers as we think of them today. So the sinful meanderings of an Alexander VI probably was not well-known outside his immediate circle. I’m thinking that the people who “considered becoming Protestant” were under the influence of their town and regional leaders, and ultimately Kings, who desired to have a free hand in the conduct of their stately affairs, not under the guidance of the Holy Father. If I’m right, then a lot of the Protestantization of parts of Europe had more to do with secular pressure than heart conversion.

What ever new doctrines that may have been introduced were no doubt done away with when those wicked men left the Papacy.

Hmmm. Not a single example of a wicked Pope or a “new doctrine.” Not even one. Not much to go on.

 

[love4mary]

Read the book Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid. It answers alot of questions concerning “bad” popes who still taught accurate sound doctrine. Its a good read on many levels.

 

[Ilroy]

What ever new doctrines that may have been introduced were no doubt done away with when those wicked men left the Papacy.

So, you can’t come up with ANY new doctrines huh? Well, stop making those unfounded assertions then.

Can you give just ONE example of a new doctrine that was “done away with”? didn’t think so…cause it hasn’t happened.