Is it a sin to denounce or condemn the Pope?

[CMatt25]

Paul corrected Peter when the 1st Pope was wrong. So I’d say no. Of course the Pope may disagree with Paul correcting Peter in Scripture if he is the greatest. Oh wait. No the Apostles already had a discussion with Christ on who was the greatest.

 

[VetA]

Is this how Traditionalists in general speak about those we Christians are called to seek out and save?

Oh please, Mike, you are more likely to get a no-nonsense reality check from a Traditional Catholic than the usual sugar-coat and cotton candy that the modern church gives.

The man has one and a half feet in hell and as St. John Bosco (a Traditional Catholic you may have heard of) said, is only separated from eternal punishment by the very sheerest and fragile of veneers known as life.

If you are afraid of telling him in the starkest terms, the state of his soul, my friend, you will not convert this guy by kissing and fondling him.

To be clear, I certainly don’t purport to speak for Traditionalists in general but sure others will chime in, one way or the other. Over the last 40 years, we have not sweet talked many folks into the faith … in fact many more have left than converted. Of the majority of those that converted, it was due to studying the hard facts and understanding the faith first.

The difference between St. John Bosco and you is that he spoke chiefly out of true love and concern for lost souls rather than largely from anger at their “hard hearts” and intoletance of their “ridiculous views”.

I think this post just proved the very point I was trying to make.

the difference between you and the traditionalists, is that we, unlike you, do not subscribe to kumbya cafeteria catholicism. we believe the faith, we defend it, we do not attempt to sugar coat it so we can win converts, we do that telling them the truth and leaving it up to them. if a person’s soul is almost dead by his own hand it is our duty as catholics to give him the hard facts and not try to sway him in by telling him ‘oh its ok you think this way’ and then hoping that one day he will get the right message, to you i would say that you need to open your eyes and realize that elements of the church have tried the kumbya thing and it does not work, its the time to return to truth. To honestly have and show love for these misguided soul-dead people is to show them the error of thier ways and lead them to Christ by the only means necessary, the truth

 

[Michael_Saint]

the difference between you and the traditionalists, is that we, unlike you, do not subscribe to kumbya cafeteria catholicism. we believe the faith, we defend it, we do not attempt to sugar coat it so we can win converts, we do that telling them the truth and leaving it up to them. if a person’s soul is almost dead by his own hand it is our duty as catholics to give him the hard facts and not try to sway him in by telling him ‘oh its ok you think this way’ and then hoping that one day he will get the right message, to you i would say that you need to open your eyes and realize that elements of the church have tried the kumbya thing and it does not work, its the time to return to truth. To honestly have and show love for these misguided soul-dead people is to show them the error of thier ways and lead them to Christ by the only means necessary, the truth

Another post that proves my point about angry traditionalists.

By the way, why did Jesus use parables? And why did he reveal to his “inner-circle” the deeper meanings in those parables?

Here is a hint to the correct answer taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The parables are not for Him but for the crowd. When He speaks of His relation to the Father it is in direct terms, without metaphor. It follows that the scope of these exquisite little moralities ought to be measured by the audience whom they were designed to benefit. In other words they form part of the “Economy” whereby truth is dispensed to men as they are able to bear it (Mark 4:33; John 16:12).”

Which is why Paul’s presentation of the gospel at the Areopagus (Acts 17) was different than Peter’s preaching in Lystra (Acts 14) and still different than his speech to the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts 2).

They did not subscribe to the “give 'em all the hard truths of the faith and they can take it or leave it”. They rather said to themselves, “what must I do and say to win their souls?” Of course, that necessitated they speak the truth, but they usually avoided speaking the way you and others do here and elsewhere no doubt.

 

[Michael_Saint]

By the way VetA, I read your “About Me”, and I am glad to hear that you are planning to join religious life!

One thing about traditionalists - they have a love for priestly and religious vocations, and that I admire.

(Btw, I do love the Tridentine Mass and attend when I can).

 

[VetA]

Another post that proves my point about angry traditionalists.

By the way, why did Jesus use parables? And why did he reveal to his “inner-circle” the deeper meanings in those parables?

Here is a hint to the correct answer taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The parables are not for Him but for the crowd. When He speaks of His relation to the Father it is in direct terms, without metaphor. It follows that the scope of these exquisite little moralities ought to be measured by the audience whom they were designed to benefit. In other words they form part of the “Economy” whereby truth is dispensed to men as they are able to bear it (Mark 4:33; John 16:12).”

Which is why Paul’s presentation of the gospel at the Areopagus (Acts 17) was different than Peter’s preaching in Lystra (Acts 14) and still different than his speech to the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts 2).

They did not subscribe to the “give 'em all the hard truths of the faith and they can take it or leave it”. They rather said to themselves, “what must I do and say to win their souls?” Of course, that necessitated they speak the truth, but they usually avoided speaking the way you and others do here and elsewhere no doubt.

i did not say anything about parables or Jesus speaking in metaphores. btw what is your point about Trads?

By the way VetA, I read your “About Me”, and I am glad to hear that you are planning to join religious life!

One thing about traditionalists - they have a love for priestly and religious vocations, and that I admire.

(Btw, I do love the Tridentine Mass and attend when I can).

thanks

 

[Traditional_Ang]

The difference between St. John Bosco and you is that he spoke chiefly out of true love and concern for lost souls rather than largely from anger at their “hard hearts” and intoletance of their “ridiculous views”.

I think this post just proved the very point I was trying to make.

Michael Saint:

How do you know Guiseppe isn’t speaking the Truth in Love, or are you claiming to have the Gift of “Reading Hearts”?

As someone who who lives in the “City of Tolerance”, I’d much rather have someone such as Guseppe than some of my “Oh so tolerant” neighbors accosting me and one of my black friends… I assume you know about the incident that occurred during a demonstration right after Prop 8 passed where a Black supporter of Gay Marriage was assaulted (by his “fellow Demonstrators”), called the “N-Word” and then told, “If you know what’s good for you, you won’t be coming near West Hollywood anytime soon!”

These were my neighbors, and these were probably the same people who slashed my tires twice because I had the unmitigated gall to leave an NRA Sticker on a used car that I bought in the early 1990’s - They did this in spite of the “Handicapped Sticker” hanging on the Mirror!

Both actions are objectively worse than anything Guiseppe said, or possibly could have meant. and, Since what Guiseppe said is objectively true and could have been said in love (and since neither of these two acts could have been done “In love”), I must request that this stop, if it hasn’t already. I must ask you to remember that you are talking about & to Brothers & Sisters in Christ who have probably dealt with these issues at length. In addition, Our Lord has forbidden us to speculate about the Motivations of our Brothers & Sisters in Christ, or to make any Judgments about those Motivations.

I hope this is the end of this, not only on this thread, but on any future threads…

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Michael_Saint]

I hope this is the end of this, not only on this thread, but on any future threads…

It will be, because it does not seem to do much good.

 

[CMatt25]

It will be, because it does not seem to do much good.

Sadly it does appear sometimes this is not always the place for that to be done. :nope: God bless you and peace.

 

[choy]

To answer the original question, the Catholic traditon is to condemn and denounce actions and non-values, not people. When you denounce or condemn anyone by name, you are violating a moral principle.

As to whether or not the pope can or should be put on triabl by a secular government, there is an ancient regulation here that applies to all Catholics. No pope is ever subject to any temporal authority. Therefore, any Catholic who sustaines this point of view is reducing the papacy and the person to holds the office to a subject of another temporal leader. Only the subject of a temporal authority can be judged by a temporal authority. Popes are not subjects of temporal authorities. They are Vicars of Jesus Christ, which places them at the head of the Church on earth and above all temporal authorities.

The only way that a Catholic can morally approve of putting a pope on trial would be for the person who holds the office to abdicate. Then he would no longer be pope. He returns to the ranks of the College of Bishops. As long as he is pope, his superior to the College of Bishops.

Another way of understanding it is this, the pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Jesus is not subject to any temporal authority unless he chooses to be. As he said to Pilate, “You have authority over me, because it has been given to you from above.” The same applies to Peter. Only authority that has been assigned from above can judge Peter, since Peter is the visible head of the Mystical Body. You can’t place the head on trial without placing the body. To place a pope on trial is to place the Mystical Body on trial, since he is the temporal head of that body, with Christ as it’s true head, of course. But he is the temporal head by Divine design, not human design.

Can a pope be made to retire or resign? No, never. If he is canonically elected, the bishops cannot ask for his resignation, even if he were the worse criminal in the world. He remains the Vicar of Jesus Christ and is answerable to no one in the Church. He is not even accountable to Church law, because he is the Law-Giver. He is only accountable for his soul, as is every other sinner. Like every other sinner, he is not accountable to the world for his sins, only to God and the Church, through his confessor, not outside of confession.

Let’s just assume that all of the allegations against Pope Benedict were true, he remains the Vicar of Jesus Christ. His authority is indisputed. His teachings on faith and morals continue to be infallible, because he cannot teach error. He continues to be the Law Giver and he continues to have the power and the Divine Right to demand obedience of Catholics.

A pope’s sins do nothing to diminish his office and his power. Ironically, he can even excommunicate another person for the same sin that he may have committed and the excommuncation is valid and binding, until lifted by another pope.

To close, you cannot denounce or condemn people, only behaviors and non-values. We cannot submit the Vicar of Christ to temporal authorities, because as Vicar of Christ he is no one’s subject except Christ’s. He cannot be deposed by anyone, because there is no authority that can judge him. The only way out, would be for a council to declare that he is not a valid pope. Then he returns to the ranks of the bishops and has to submit to all the authority that any bishop must submit to.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother JR, as always you are very enlightening

but what can you say to Catholics who accuse the Pope of allowing abuse to proliferate in the Church, especially the Mass and practices related to it? does what you just have said apply? or do they have a valid complaint?

@everyone
and speaking of denouncing Popes, ever heard of Sinead O’Connor? see what happens

 

[CMatt25]

Over the last 40 years, we have not sweet talked many folks into the faith … in fact many more have left than converted. Of the majority of those that converted, it was due to studying the hard facts and understanding the faith first.

I would have to disagree. The reason many have left the practice of the faith is because of things like the intolerance, the judging, the holier than thou attitude. The my way or the highway attitude. The idea of you have to believe x, y, z or else.

Perhaps with more sweet honey and less vinegar the Church would have caught more and certainly would have kept more in practice. It would have helped too of course over the past decade if the cover up of child abuse by Apostolic successors hadn’t been uncovered. But traditionalists want a purer Church which translates to smaller so you’re well on the path to it. :sad_yes: The problem of course is once you throw out the sinners, you’re left with a Church of one. Jesus Christ only will be in it.

 

[Genesis315]

In general, here is how St. Francis de Sales says we should deal with an erring Pope:

And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err *extra cathedram, *outside the chair of Peter, that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.

 

[CradleCath]

[SIGN]

Hitchens and Dawkins could use a lecture on this.[/SIGN]

They wouldn’t “get it”. Think about it, they’re atheists. Anyone who can be part of this universe, the world, the earth & not see the hand of God…just isn’t too bright.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, as always you are very enlightening

but what can you say to Catholics who accuse the Pope of allowing abuse to proliferate in the Church, especially the Mass and practices related to it? does what you just have said apply? or do they have a valid complaint?

First of all, we have to start with the word abuse. An abuse is something that is not authorized by legitimate Church authority. Therefore, everything that people call abuse is not abuse. Many things that people call abuse were authorized by legitimate Church authority. As St. Francis de Sales said, popes do not err on matters of right. He means on matters of faith and morals. The liturgy and sacraments are certainly matters of faith.

There have been abuses. There are and have been freedoms taken with the liturgy that were never approved by any legitimate Church authority. Since they were not approved, the pope is not guilty of allowing it. To allow is to give it his blessing.

We must always keep in mind that it is not the pope’s job to run the Church. Americans take a corporate view of the Church and tend to see the pope as the CEO. Nothing can be further from the truth. The fact is that until 1983 canon law protected the rights of bishops as autonomous heads of local Churches. Whatever happened in those local Churches was not subject to the authority of the pope, unless the local bishop wanted to make it a papal issue. Popes did not ride over the heads of bishops. It was the code of 1983 that limited the authority of bishops and their freedom. For example, until 1983, bishops could ordain other bishops without papal approval. That was taken away from them. Until 1983, bishops could make changes to the liturgy in their dioceses without papal approval. The code of 1917 said that they bishop was the highest ranking liturgist in the Church. Today’s code says that the bishop remains the highest ranking liturgist in the Church, but he must work within the framework of two bodies: the Sacred Congregation for Sacraments and Divne Worship and the Bishops’ Conference. The Bishop’s Conference is a ltitle tricky.

Normally, Bishops’ conferences do not have any jurisdiction over the bishops, excep when the bishops sign an agreement on something. Then they are bound to the concordat until they formally withdraw from it. For example, the USCCB agreed to communion standing and in the hand. The individual bishop cannot forbid it unless he first lets the USCCB know that he is pulling out of the agreement. He files a formal statement with the Conference.

The same applies to other liturgical exceptions that are granted by the Sacred Congregation. If a bishop wants out of some liturgical rule, he must notify the Congregation and they have to authorize it. He cannot do it arbitrarilly.

As you can see, none of this ever crosses the pope’s desk or is brought to his attention. Generally, popes are not interested in this kind of issue, because they have more important issues to deal with. Liturgical issues are not issues that require the pope’s attention, because the popes have delegated the authority and oversight to the Sacred Congregation. The Cardinal Prefect is the highest ranking authority on liturgical issues. Legally it is the pope, but in practice it is the Cardinal Prefect.

To condemn or denounce a pope for liturgical abuse is a waste of time. The pope is not involved. He does not make the rules, the Sacred Congregation makes the rules. He does not get involved in internal matters of nations. The conferences of bishops for each area take care of those things. And he does not get involved in the internal matters of a diocese unless he is asked to do so, which never happens. When there is a problem that the local bishop cannot solve, it goes to the Sacred Congregation. They have two choices: to solve it or ignore it. They can choose to ignore whatever they do not consider to be worthy of their time or attention or whomever they consider is just whining instead of making a legitimate complaint.

The policy in Church government is that the pope, prefects of congregations, religious superiors and bishops do not govern by the consent and approval of the governened. They govern by divine right, whether the governed agree or not. It is an imposed government, imposed by divine authority.

issue. He’s not interested in what goes on in religious orders. That’s not a priority to him.

The relatiosnhip with the Muslims and Jews, aboriton and other life issues, the issues with the SSPX, the formation of priests, the sexual abuse scandal, and human trafficking are the Vatican’s most urgent priorities right now. Because these are issues that only the Vatican can fix. The rest can be fixed by bishops and religious superiors.

This is not condoning. This is simply applying the principle of subsidiarity. Let the man at the bottom of the totem pole deal with the less important stuff and the pope can deal with the more universal stuff.

You see, the issues surrounding the liturgy are issues only to Roman Catholics. They are not issues to the entire Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is made up of 22 Churches. We’re just one out of 22. Therefore, those issues are left to the Roman prefects to solve with the local bishops, local religious superiors and among themselves. There is no need for the head of the universal Church to involve himself directly in an issue that does not affect the universal Church. He can if he chooses to do so. But morally, there is no obligation to do so. John Paul II and Pope Benedict X VI both got invovled in the issue on the Extraordinary Form. But that was their choice. They had no moral or legal obligation to get involved, since it is an issue that affects only 1/22 of the Catholic Church.

It’s an interesting system.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[choy]

Br. JR, if the Church would make one exception for cloning, i hope its you. the world needs more people like you, not only intellectual but also charitable and spiritually grounded

May God Bless you with more knowledge, so the rest of us will benefit from it

 

[Michael_Saint]

I would have to disagree. The reason many have left the practice of the faith is because of things like the intolerance, the judging, the holier than thou attitude. The my way or the highway attitude. The idea of you have to believe x, y, z or else.

Perhaps with more sweet honey and less vinegar the Church would have caught more and certainly would have kept more in practice. It would have helped too of course over the past decade if the cover up of child abuse by Apostolic successors hadn’t been uncovered. But traditionalists want a purer Church which translates to smaller so you’re well on the path to it. :sad_yes: The problem of course is once you throw out the sinners, you’re left with a Church of one. Jesus Christ only will be in it.

Bravo!

I believe Francis de Sales recommended Honey rather than Vinegar in his “Philothea”.

But you won’t find much of that here. Another example of how the Saints get cherry-picked on this particular forum.

 

[Incomplete]

However, the fundamental difference is, that when the educational system finds someone raping children, they TURN THAT PERSON INTO THE AUTHORITIES. They don’t move him to a different school to try and protect their image…

Your friend needs to educate himself. The schools transfer teachers all the time. They call it “passing the trash.” Here’s a few articles that might interest you:

Secret Shame of Our Schools

Silently Shifting Teachers

There’s others, but they tend to be in journals. For example, a study reported to the U.S. Department of Catholic Education titled “In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools, (What administrators should know)” reported on 225 cases of sexual abuse in New York City. In ALL cases, teachers admitted to it. 1% lost their teaching licenses, and only 35% had any negative consequences.

But how many were reported to authorities?

Zero.

Some chose to leave their school districts and mostly got positive recommendations. Some were given early retirement packages.

I’m sure there’s more, but that’s a start. Your atheist friend could find them easily enough if he’s really interested in protecting our children.

 

[CradleCath]

Another post that proves my point about angry traditionalists.
By the way, why did Jesus use parables? And why did he reveal to his “inner-circle” the deeper meanings in those parables?

Here is a hint to the correct answer taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The parables are not for Him but for the crowd. When He speaks of His relation to the Father it is in direct terms, without metaphor. It follows that the scope of these exquisite little moralities ought to be measured by the audience whom they were designed to benefit. In other words they form part of the “Economy” whereby truth is dispensed to men as they are able to bear it (Mark 4:33; John 16:12).”

Which is why Paul’s presentation of the gospel at the Areopagus (Acts 17) was different than Peter’s preaching in Lystra (Acts 14) and still different than his speech to the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts 2).

They did not subscribe to the “give 'em all the hard truths of the faith and they can take it or leave it”. They rather said to themselves, “what must I do and say to win their souls?” Of course, that necessitated they speak the truth, but they usually avoided speaking the way you and others do here and elsewhere no doubt.

It’s true that we need to “meet people where they are”. Explaining the rosary to a man who believes he is “saved” by faith alone, isn’t the smart thing to do. Also, a non-confrontational attitude & just plain old-fashioned kindness is always a must. Also, trying to tell a person who is “just interested in learning more”… all of the details re Transubstantiation, the procedures used for canonization, etc. is ridiculous.

HOWEVER, to “sugarcoat” the truths of our faith just to convert people is both morally wrong & has proven bad for both the convert & the Church. We, the laity who brings a friend to our Pastor, in order to understand the Catholic faith & perhaps convert to it, should be able to count on the RICA process to properly prepare them for Baptism. It isn’t doing so. The place for converts to learn the Catholic faith, the pure…unadulterated Catholic faith, BEFORE they agree to Baptism is what RICA is for & it has failed miserable. . I’ve met converts who have told me that they were told that our ban against abortion is a “matter of conscience”. They have no idea about Natural Law & the teachings of Aquinas on the sin of Homosexual actions, nor do they really understand the “Communion of Saints”. RCIA must be brought back into the hands of the parish priest, who in turn needs to be trained by his Bishop on how to perform his duties towards new Catholics.

This is not the fault of the converts, it’s OUR fault. So is the failure of our CCD classes for children. Kids of 8 years of age should be able to recite & UNDERSTAND, the “Hail Mary” & the “Lord’s Prayer” before they make their first confession & communion. In my opinion, parents of kids in CCD should be required to attend these classes with their children. It’s an hour a week, they should be able to spend an hour a week studying the faith WITH thier kids.

btw., trying to put all Traditional Catholic into a little box & say “here they are & I know how they think & act” is unfair & untrue. You know nothing about me, for instance, & I’m a Traditional Catholic.

 

[choy]

Your friend needs to educate himself. The schools transfer teachers all the time. They call it “passing the trash.” Here’s a few articles that might interest you:

Secret Shame of Our Schools

Silently Shifting Teachers

There’s others, but they tend to be in journals. For example, a study reported to the U.S. Department of Catholic Education titled “In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools, (What administrators should know)” reported on 225 cases of sexual abuse in New York City. In ALL cases, teachers admitted to it. 1% lost their teaching licenses, and only 35% had any negative consequences.

But how many were reported to authorities?

Zero.

Some chose to leave their school districts and mostly got positive recommendations. Some were given early retirement packages.

I’m sure there’s more, but that’s a start. Your atheist friend could find them easily enough if he’s really interested in protecting our children.

i agree with this as there was a recent case in the school in my area where the teacher is a substitute teacher and has moved from school to school. it was the first time he was reported to the police and the media got word of it, but apparently it wasn’t his first offense

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, if the Church would make one exception for cloning, i hope its you. the world needs more people like you, not only intellectual but also charitable and spiritually grounded

May God Bless you with more knowledge, so the rest of us will benefit from it

You may want to ask the brothers in my community first. They may have a different opinion. They elected me the regional superior on Pentecost Sunday. Two days later I was calling some to task about different things and imposing penances. I think they’re probably asking if it’s a sin to denounce their superior.

On a more serious note, by greatest concern regarding my brothers has nothing to do with the liturgy. It has to do with obedience. If one is obedient, everything else falls into place. We must learn to obey as Christ obeyed: without anger, resentment and reservations of any kind. We must learn to accept difficulties as Mary did at the foot of the cross. While her son hung dying she accepted his assasins as her children. THAT kind of immaculate love is the result of a truly loving obedience obedience to the will of God. I call it “obedience that is diercted by interior silence.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Incomplete]

On a more serious note, by greatest concern regarding my brothers has nothing to do with the liturgy. It has to do with obedience. If one is obedient, everything else falls into place. We must learn to obey as Christ obeyed: without anger, resentment and reservations of any kind. We must learn to accept difficulties as Mary did at the foot of the cross. While her son hung dying she accepted his assasins as her children. THAT kind of immaculate love is the result of a truly loving obedience obedience to the will of God. I call it “obedience that is diercted by interior silence.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I really love this.