Loyalty to the Pope or Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderingCathol
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I may not agree with some things the Holy Father has done in his career… but I am certain, if I took the time to find out what his motives were, I would probably agree with him… as it is, I dont (usually) because I trust him, that his heart is in the right place (speaking of issues outside of doctrine/dogma here)… in his entire Papacy, he has done ZERO to scandalize me as opposed to the VAST number of Preists, bishops, etc… have sent me into fits of anger.

If ya aint in line with the Pope, you aint in line with the church…you add to the ever growing problem of those who THINK they are Catholic, and now just need to drag Holy Mother Church into the “times” so “SHE” can be a “proper” “PC” catholic church…

We already have that…its called the Protest-ant church… and all its sub category offshoots of various “churches”
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
Who determines that the Pope has “departed from catholic tradition.” ?
Click to expand...
Lets see. we could start by comparing what a poe teaches to his predecessors.

When all the previous popes say that catholics should pray with heretics and the leader of the church endorses it then we could say that he has broken with tradition.

This pope has done things unthinkable to the other popes.
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
I may not agree with some things the Holy Father has done in his career… but I am certain, if I took the time to find out what his motives were, I would probably agree with him… as it is, I dont (usually) because I trust him, that his heart is in the right place (speaking of issues outside of doctrine/dogma here)… in his entire Papacy, he has done ZERO to scandalize me as opposed to the VAST number of Preists, bishops, etc… have sent me into fits of anger.

If ya aint in line with the Pope, you aint in line with the church…you add to the ever growing problem of those who THINK they are Catholic, and now just need to drag Holy Mother Church into the “times” so “SHE” can be a “proper” “PC” catholic church…

We already have that…its called the Protest-ant church… and all its sub category offshoots of various “churches”
Click to expand...
Then you are following the pope and not the church. the pope is not the church. I will never follow a pope that scandalizers the faithful. I pray that the next one will be orthodox. Not that this one is not but he is seriously lacking in areas.

anyways, my loyalty is to the church not anyone particular person that happens to occupy the chair of peter. This goes for this pope, past popes who have scandalised the church and future one.
 
WanderingC-

Jesus was a good Jew. He kept the law perfectly, yet he scandalized those who thought that he did not keep with the teachings of his predecessors.

If the Pope gave his okey-dokey to torture, I might agree with you. If he said a prayer to Shiva, you might have a point. If he declared that Mohammed is God’s true prophet you might have a point. Praying in the presence of non-Christians does not cross any lines. Listening to them pray crosses no lines.

I suggest some quality time with Hosea 6:6 and reflect on the way Jesus used it in Mt 9:13 & Mt 12:7. 👍
 
40.png
WanderingCathol:
Then you are following the pope and not the church. the pope is not the church. I will never follow a pope that scandalizers the faithful. I pray that the next one will be orthodox. Not that this one is not but he is seriously lacking in areas.

anyways, my loyalty is to the church not anyone particular person that happens to occupy the chair of peter. This goes for this pope, past popes who have scandalised the church and future one.
Click to expand...
I seem to be stuck on this chapter, but I recommend reading Galations chapter 2 (short chapter – probably shorter than this post – I encourage you to read it). Notice how Paul doesn’t exactly seem to be awestruck by Peter and the Apostles (v6), but yet has great respect for the office and authority of our first Pope by bringing an issue that was dividing the early church before him and other “presbyters”. In fact, Paul (also considered to be an apostle) even confronts Peter for not practicing what he preaches when he refuses to eat with the Gentiles. Yet, I don’t think Paul has quite the attitude of “never following the pope” if the matter isn’t resolved as he thinks it should be. If he did, why would he have brought the matter to the council in the first place? Why not just continue on teaching with what he thought was right?

I think this chapter indicates the importance of respecting the authority of the office of the Pope and his teaching. I don’t find fault with JPII as you do, but I guess the real question is when is a person disagreeing with the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, and when is that person disagreeing with the Pope, fellow sinner? What is the proper way to dissent without disrepecting the Papal office?

Another question:
In Acts 15:28-29, some of the decisions of the council were to abstain from blood and from illicit sexual union. Yet no one seems to think these days that they are disobeying when they order their hamburger rare, but most know (or should know) they are disobeying if they do not abstain from illicit sexual union. Why? Are there some instructions that are meant for everyone at all times and some that are meant for particular cultures and times? I tend to think so, but then this could be used by those who hope to keep the door open on the issues of contraception, femail priesthood, etc., so I say that with reservations.

As with the Bible, couldn’t teachings of the Popes and Church Fathers also be misinterpreted if the context is not considered?
 
40.png
WanderingCathol:
and you think praying with jews, muslims and heretics has nothing to do with faith an morals?

This is not a matter of infallibility or not. It seems that everything is dismissed as " well, that was not infallible" excuse.

He should not have done it!
Click to expand...
I’m having a problem with you lumping “Jews and Muslims” as/with heretics.

mara
 
From a Zenit article today:

Church’s Freedom in U.S. Threatened, Says Cardinal George
"Arena of Ideological Warfare," He Tells Pope

Full article: zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=54597

…Cardinal George continued: “The Church’s mission is threatened internally by divisions which paralyze her ability to act forcefully and decisively.”
“On the left,” he said, “the Church’s teachings on sexual morality and the nature of ordained priesthood and of the Church herself are publicly opposed, as are the bishops who preach and defend these teachings. On the right, the Church’s teachings might be accepted, but bishops who do not govern exactly and to the last detail in the way expected are publicly opposed.”
“The Church is an arena of ideological warfare rather than a way of discipleship shepherded by bishops,” the cardinal observed…

In other words, respect your bishops whether you agree with them or not, and the bishop of the bishops is the Pope. Some Catholics seem to think nothing of airing their dissent through the secular media. This is truly what is shameful and scandalizing.
 
40.png
milimac:
From a Zenit article today:

Church’s Freedom in U.S. Threatened, Says Cardinal George
"Arena of Ideological Warfare," He Tells Pope

Full article: zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=54597

…Cardinal George continued: “The Church’s mission is threatened internally by divisions which paralyze her ability to act forcefully and decisively.”
“On the left,” he said, “the Church’s teachings on sexual morality and the nature of ordained priesthood and of the Church herself are publicly opposed, as are the bishops who preach and defend these teachings. On the right, the Church’s teachings might be accepted, but bishops who do not govern exactly and to the last detail in the way expected are publicly opposed.”
“The Church is an arena of ideological warfare rather than a way of discipleship shepherded by bishops,” the cardinal observed…

In other words, respect your bishops whether you agree with them or not, and the bishop of the bishops is the Pope. Some Catholics seem to think nothing of airing their dissent through the secular media. This is truly what is shameful and scandalizing.
Click to expand...
I don’t see it that way at all. If they don’t want dissent then start excommunication those bishops and cardinals that bring scandal to the church. I wonder why the popes has never acted against these scandalous individuals.
 
From Pope Pius XI Encyclical Mortalium Animos

"10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.”[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24] "

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

If you read the entire encyclical you will quickly realize that the ecumenism of today has run a muck and is contrary to what the past popes taught. However this does not mean we abandon the Holy Father, for to do so would be to abandon the Church. We must pray extra hard for the Holy Father and all of the bishops so that they will obtain the Grace necessary to steer the Church back on course.
 
40.png
EUSTACHIUS:
From Pope Pius XI Encyclical Mortalium Animos

"10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.
Click to expand...
But was the Holy Father at a non-Catholic assembly? Or were non-Catholics at a Catholic assembly? Or were both Catholics and non-Catholics at a neutral assembly?
 
Jesus spent a great deal of time with sinners. He sent His apostles to sinners and non-believers.

The apostle Paul spent time in Athens and told the Athenians in Acts17:22-23, “Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD…”

Notice that Paul goes to the polytheistic Athenians and shows them respect. He then points out that one of their altars with the inscription TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Paul then uses this as an ecumenical spring board to begin a dialogue that informs the Athenians about the one true God.

Meeting with heretics, sinners, and non-believers is the only way to evangelize them. If you show them no consideration or respect you deny the dignity of the bits of truth that they might possess and you will never be able to bring them the full and true word of God. I believe that, inspite of whatever short comings the present Pope may have, he has done a marvelous job of opening doors to our non-christian brothers and sisters around the world.

Jesus went to the spiritually ill and sick just as a doctor must go to the physically ill. So also the chief shepherd of the church must in every age attempt to reach out to those that are in need of the spiritual promises of Jesus Christ and his church.
 
Dear all,

First, it is incorrect to call Jews “heretics” as they preceeded Jesus and never believed in Him as the Messiah. Muslims were not called “heretics” until about the time of St. John of Damascus. His understanding was that Mohammed was taught Christianity by an Arian monk and thus was a member of a heretical sect from the start–hence, St. John called Islam the “101st heresy.” Nevertheless, he had friends and associates who were Muslim.

Now, if “all the past popes” have called Jews and Muslims heretics, those popes were using the term in a different way than we do today. “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith…” Code of Canon Law, #751

As far as the question of associating with heretics and schismatics and pagans, the principle the Church acts upon is to do that which is for the eternal salvation of souls. Pope Pius XI said: “for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.” Yes, exactly. How can one promote their return, however? ONLY through not taking part in the assembly of non-Catholics?

Today, do you think a Lutheran is more drawn by Catholics who refuse to associate with him or by those who acknowledge the good aspects of his faith but encourage him on to something better? Are Muslims drawn to the Catholic Church through isolation or communication? It varies from person to person, I imagine…

Fundamentally, the question is: how do we act charitably toward other people since our “light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father?” (Mt. 5:16).
 
40.png
WanderingCathol:
This is not a matter of infallibility or not. It seems that everything is dismissed as " well, that was not infallible" excuse.

He should not have done it!
Click to expand...
Here is a post of mine from another thread:

St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:
“the Pope with General Council cannot err, either in framing decrees of faith or general precepts of morality;…the Pope when determining anything in a doubtful matter, whether it is possible for him to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful.”

Cardinal Newman wrote:
“I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.”

We won’t be asked at our judgement ‘What did the Pope do wrong?’, we will be asked ‘Were you obedient to my vicar?’

Catholic Tradition is guarded by the Church. Catholic Tradition is not what one thinks it ought to be, or what one is accustomed to, but it is what the Church tells us it is. Of course, Popes can go wrong, but it’s not our place to say if something the Pope did is inconsistent with Catholic Tradition, because it is up to the Church to tell us what is Catholic belief/tradition, it does no then require our NIHIL OBSTAT buy it requires our SUBMISSION! (Can 753)

Also, Pius XI can’t be used to overrule John Paul II, it goes the other way around.
 
40.png
Trevelyan:
Here is a post of mine from another thread:

St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:
“the Pope with General Council cannot err, either in framing decrees of faith or general precepts of morality;…the Pope when determining anything in a doubtful matter, whether it is possible for him to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful.”

Cardinal Newman wrote:
“I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.”

We won’t be asked at our judgement ‘What did the Pope do wrong?’, we will be asked ‘Were you obedient to my vicar?’

Catholic Tradition is guarded by the Church. Catholic Tradition is not what one thinks it ought to be, or what one is accustomed to, but it is what the Church tells us it is. Of course, Popes can go wrong, but it’s not our place to say if something the Pope did is inconsistent with Catholic Tradition, because it is up to the Church to tell us what is Catholic belief/tradition, it does no then require our NIHIL OBSTAT buy it requires our SUBMISSION! (Can 753)

Also, Pius XI can’t be used to overrule John Paul II, it goes the other way around.
Click to expand...
I don’t care what Newmann or Bellarmine said, at all. I can judge for myself the popes actions and compare it to the church’s tradition.

Also, I highly doubt it that Christ will ask me how obediend I was to his vicar?

As for your last quote, that is how one judges if the action of the popes is truly catholic and keeping with tradition. That which is compromise is to be ignored. such as:

Muslim and christian worship the same God--------Ignored
praying?gathering with muslim, jews, hindus--------Ignored
praying and compromising with heretics----------Ignored
Kissing the Koran------ :eek:
allowing the scandalization of the church by prelates------ :crying: :eek:

Like I said before, the pope is orthodox in somepoints but serioulsy lacking in other.
 
40.png
WanderingCathol:
When he says that the church of christ subsits in the catholic church. When traditions says and has alway taught that the catholic church is the christ’s church.

when he prays with jews, muslims, etc.

when traditions teaches one never to pray with heretics.

These are just two examples that are troubling to me. I really believe that he is a saintly man but in my judgment he has inadvertently brought scandal to the church.
Click to expand...
Technically, Jews and Muslims are infidels, not heretics. Infidel means “No faith”, meaning than they do not accept Jesus Christ as God Incarnate and Savior of the World.

A heretic is someone who starts off as a Catholic, but perverts its doctrine. Martin Luther was a heretic, because he was in fact a Catholic priest, but then taught as doctrine theological ideals that were not in harmony with Catholic Dogma. However, someone like Charles Stanley, who teaches as doctrine theology that is at odds with Catholic dogma is not a heretic because he was never Catholic.
 
There is nothing wrong with praying with people who don’t share your Christian faith. It doesn’t mean that you believe what they do or worship the same diety (just because you’re with them doesn’t mean you can’ t pray to “your” God…).

I think the pope has set a tremendous example to promote peace between Catholics and people of other religions. Peace leads to understanding which leads to converting.
 
WanderingCatholic, This is related to what Karl discussed about “subsists.” I suggest you prayerfully reread “Dominus Iesus” as well as the catechism (sections 839 thru 856). Section 856 specifically mentions “a respectful diologue” as being implicit in the Church’s mission to spread the gospel. In order to establish a diologue one must establish common ground. This common ground is the TRUTH which by it’s ontological nature, can only have Jesus Christ, (whether recognized or not) as it’s source.

That his actions differ from past popes reflects the fact that He faces different circumstances and challenges. Would I have done the same things as he? Maybe not. And there again, maybe. Like Paul, JPII attempts to be all things to all men inorder to bring them closer to Christ. If this scandalizes you, you may want to reread the N.T. with orthodox Jewish eyes and see how scandalous the actions of Christ, Himself, were. (Consorting with tax collectors and prostitutes, etc.!)

It is presumptiuos (and in light of all JPII’s writings, disingenuous) to represent JPII’s pastoral actions to respect THOSE ELEMENTS of truth found in non-Catholic faiths in an effort to establish such a bridge as anthing else. To interperate them as endorsments of those FAITHS as another version of truth is wilfully disingenuous! While I’ll be the first to condemn the abuses of Vat.II, I will also be the first to defend the philosophical focus that it’s theological approach (which is only now starting to be properly understood) to the TRUTH employs. THis pope has repeatedly stressed that the Truth must be the foundation of any and all ecumenical diologue. The truth has not changed, but the means of our expressing that truth must enable us to find a common language in order talk TO people, not PAST people in our search to bring them the gospel of Christ.

While it may feel comforting to isolate ourselves triumphantly and lord the fullness of catholic truth over those still searching in the “shadows” (to use a term from the catechism) such an attitude wins few arguements and even fewer souls! Instead of reveling in the fact that you are more Catholic than the Pope, I suggest a humble examination of the Council, Curial and Papal documents of the last 40 years in an effort to discover the truth of what they say instead of your perception of how they’ve been mishandled.

Sincerely, TK

(P.S. God may not ask how obediant you were to His vicar, but He just might ask how many souls you won for Him, or could have won, had you been.)
 
Please, if you’ll notice nowhere in any of John Paul’s writings to he refer to Jews and Muslims as ‘infidels’, like all of his other predesessors. You all need to seriously reflect on the possible reason for this glaring omission. Also, there is no distinction made here between the type of ‘gatherings’ and ‘dialogue’ taking place today and previous ‘gatherings’ and ‘dialogue’ that took place before. The motives for such activities today do not square with Church teaching. The idea of returning to the Church has been explicitly rejected by the very man that is designated to head up the Ecumenical endeavor. The ‘dialogue’ of today, fueled by modern philosophy, is engaged in for the sole purpose of finding common ground; to re-discover our hidden unity and where there has been disagreement in the past, to widdle away the contradictions by some sort of Hegelian synthesis.
 
Do you feel that I am in the wrong here?
Click to expand...
It depends. If you are not giving your religious assent to the ordinary universal teachings of the Roman Pontiff, whether they are infallibly defined or not, then you are in the wrong.

The Apostolic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, states:
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. (LG, 25)
Click to expand...
I suggest the advice given by St. Catherine of Sienna, Doctor of the Church:
“He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal.” (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28).
Click to expand...
“He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation” (Dialogue, Treatise on Obedience)
Click to expand...
And from Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman:
I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.
[John Henry Newman, “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman(1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26, http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html”]http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html]
Click to expand...
I suggest the book by Msgr George A. Kelly called Keeping the Church Catholic with John Paul II.

I believe I am loyal to the Church by being loyal to the Pope.

God bless,

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top