Loyalty to the Pope or Church

[mrS4ntA]

WanderingCathol:

I am not bound to obey priests/bishops/cardinals or popes that teach heresy.

My loyalty is to Christ and his church. Not the particular person that occupies the seat of peter no matter how saintly he is.

That’s EXACTLY what the protestants’ position is: the protest! A loyalty to Christ and His Church constitutes in it, a loyalty to her helm: the valid, reigning Supreme Pontiff - the person as well as the See!

Lumen Christi sit semper vobiscum!

 

[CatholicGeek]

WanderingCathol:

My loyalty is to Christ and his church. Not the particular person that occupies the seat of peter no matter how saintly he is.

I think WanderingCathol is not alone in this opinion. Here are some others who have a similar view on this point…

From www.firstcongmadison.org/origins.html

We have no Pope or Bishops as the Roman Catholics.
…
We of The United Church of Christ are united only in our loyalty to Christ, and in our belief that this loyalty can be expressed in different ways, by different people.

The United Church of Christ

From www.wcg.ndirect.co.uk/Article20.htm

Spiritually, it won’t get you far. Your true loyalty is to Christ, not to men who claim to represent Him. And if you relinquish your obligation to think for yourself and allow a church leader to do it for you, you are not following the lead of the Spirit which is a Christian duty (Rom 8:12-14); you are following a man who has put himself in charge OVER you (a biblically untenable position - see Matt 23:8).

Worldwide Church of God

From www.enterhisrest.org/ichabod/church_in_the_wild2.pdf

Make no mistake, dear friend, our first loyalty is to Christ and His Word. No pope, priest, prelate, or presiding officer supersedes the Word of God and its Christ. Our first loyalty is love to Christ, above all others, beyond all others, superseding all others. Christ is first in our loyalty, because He is first in our love.

The Church in the Wilderness

On the other hand, I like this point …

From www.newoxfordreview.org/2000/dec00/newoxfordnotes.html

When a Catholic says yes to Christ, he says yes to Christ’s Church and to that Church’s teachings and structure of papal authority. So if a Catholic must choose between being a good Catholic and a good American, he must — if his first loyalty is really to Christ — choose to be a good Catholic, and hang the consequences. For no authentic Catholic can separate Christ from His Bride, the Church — or separate the Church from the papacy.

 

[WanderingCathol]

mrS4ntA:

That’s EXACTLY what the protestants’ position is: the protest! A loyalty to Christ and His Church constitutes in it, a loyalty to her helm: the valid, reigning Supreme Pontiff - the person as well as the See!

Lumen Christi sit semper vobiscum!

If you want to follow heresy go right ahead. your soul is in danger of being lost forever.

Yes, he is the pope. He is a heretodox pope and we pray that the next one will be orthodox.

 

[Ourladyguadalup]

I regret that I have wasted 10 minutes or so reading this thread. At first glance WanderingCathol, you appear to be seriously asking for opinions to help you work through your dilemma, but it seems you really just want to argue & preach to us.

If you are offering a mean-spirited challenge instead of a charitable discourse on a subject, why not just announce it upfront, so those of us who don’t care to be a part of it can skip to the next thread?

Also, interesting screen name you chosen for yourself. To where exactly are you wandering…?

 

[jc_escobar]

Hi Wandering Cathol,

Are you going to provide us with the quote of His Holines John Paul II where you are saying he’s going against the Church’s teaching?

Blessings,
J.C.

 

[Ichthus]

jc_escobar:

Hi Wandering Cathol,

Are you going to provide us with the quote of His Holines John Paul II where you are saying he’s going against the Church’s teaching?

Blessings,
J.C.

Doesn’t matter if he can. The doctrine of papal infallibility means that the pope cannot bind the Church to heresy, not that he can’t be a heretic

Nevertheless, religious submission is due to the pope’s authentic magisterium (non infallible) and the discipline of the Church. This does not mean an unconditional and blind acceptance however.

John XXII once gave a sermon, in it he said that the souls of the just who died did not behold the beatific vision until after the resurection. A Dominican friar stood up and accused him of heresy and was promptly excommunicated. The Dominican order mobilised and taught against the pope from their pulpits. The pope then founded a commission to examine the issue… The commission found that the Domican friar had been right and it was the constant teaching of the Church that the souls of the just beheld the beatific vision before the resurrection. The pope went to confession and declared that he had been teaching as a private theologian. He promptly died the next day.

However, the gates of hell cannot prevail. And though the pope might be a private heretic, he can never be a public heretic, for to be a public heretic (whether material or formal) is to be cut off from the commonwealth of the Church, and thus to be reckoned as not belonging to the Church. A pope can’t very well be both the head and a nonmember of the Church. The onlyy two possibilities is that a pope who becomes a public heretic ceases to be pope or else taht he cannot be a public heretic. The latter is more probable, as the former would seriously impugn the indefectibility of the Church. Therefore, a pope could be a fformal heretic even, but only privately.

 

[BobCatholic]

WanderingCathol:

Lets see. we could start by comparing what a poe teaches to his predecessors.

AH. so “we” are to do the comparing, and “we” are to judge.

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

So what you’re saying is that you (or “we”) have the authority to judge the Pope’s adherence to Catholic tradition. Wonderful.

Try wandering back to the Catechism and finding that you or “we” as individuals have that kind of authority for me I remember Jesus giving those keys to Peter and his successors, and not to you or me.

Meanwhile, I’ll take into account the fact that the Pope goes to confession every week, so I figure he must have confessed this by now, and if God forgave him, so can I. I won’t hold a repentent sinner’s sins against him.

 

[WanderingCathol]

jc_escobar:

Hi Wandering Cathol,

Are you going to provide us with the quote of His Holines John Paul II where you are saying he’s going against the Church’s teaching?

Blessings,
J.C.

I have done that already.

Saying that muslim, jews and heretics worship the same god. I provided

We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: "The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.

 

[WanderingCathol]

So what you’re saying is that you (or “we”) have the authority to judge the Pope’s adherence to Catholic tradition. Wonderful.

** that is correct. we need to make sure that the pope is not a personal heretic. cause if he is then he looses all authority.**

Try wandering back to the Catechism and finding that you or “we” as individuals have that kind of authority for me I remember Jesus giving those keys to Peter and his successors, and not to you or me.

** yeah he did. and when those teach heresy they loose the keys and authority.**

Meanwhile, I’ll take into account the fact that the Pope goes to confession every week, so I figure he must have confessed this by now, and if God forgave him, so can I. I won’t hold a repentent sinner’s sins against him.

** good for him. repentance is good. saying that muslim, jews and heretic worship the same god is enough to go to confession.**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

why do you insist on lumping jews, muslims, and heretics with people who desire to be part of the church.

Because the Catholic Church has never taught that Jews, Muslims, and heretics are incapable of the desire for baptism and an act of perfect contrition.

All mankind are potential converts to the Catholic faith. Pope Innocent III specifically “lumped” a jew as being saved by baptism by desire. Observe,

Pope Innocent III’s decree in 1206 concerning a Jew who desired baptism but was not able to be validly baptized: “If, however, such a man had died immediately, he would have flown to his heavenly home at once, because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (Dz 413)

Now, the desire for baptism is not enough. One can desire baptism yet still cling impenitently to mortal sin. The desire for baptism is no more a guarantee of salvation than sacramental baptism.

However, the words “through no fault of his” that Pope St. Pius X uses refers to the lack of “full consciousness” of grave sin and/or lack of “deliberate will” to commit grave sin.

What do you suppose lack of “full consciousness” means if not a condition of ignorance “through no fault of his”?

From Pope St. Pius X:

**Q: Besides grave matter, what is required to constitute a mortal sin? **
A: To constitute a mortal sin, besides grave matter there is also required full consciousness of the gravity of the matter, along with the deliberate will to commit the sin.

If a Jew or Muslim or heretic (or anybody) had an implicit desire for baptism and lacked “full consiousness” of the gravity of their objective sin “through no fault of his,” is he not on the “way of salvation” according to this non-modernist pope, as opposed to on the way of damnation as are those who through their own fault cling to mortal sin through their affected ignorance?

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I have done that already.

Saying that muslim, jews and heretics worship the same god. I provided

We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: "The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.

---

Eeerrrrrrrrrrrrr… no you haven’t.

That is not a quote from Pope John Paul II. Unless I missed it somewhere, you have never attempted to quote Pope John Paul II on this thread. Instead, you assert that he is a heretic yet provide no scholastic effort to back up the claim.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Furthermore, as I’ve already shown, Pope St. Gregory the Great did not share your restrictive view of what the holy universal Church is, and who is considered “outside” of her.

Observe,

"The passion of the Church began already with Abel, and there is one Church of the elect, of those who precede, and of those who follow. . . .

They were, then, outside, but yet not divided from the holy Church, because in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church."

[St. Gregory the Great, Primasius, “On Romans” 2. 14-16. PL 68. 423-24].

Was Abraham a Jew? Do you suppose he is part of the “one Church of the elect” that Pope St. Gregory speaks of? Doesn’t he explicity say they were “outside, yet not divided from the holy Church”?? How does that square with your restrictive view intepretation of Pope St. Gregory that one who is “outside” are NOT part of the Holy Church?

Is it your contention that Pope St. Gregory the Great was a “modernist” heretic because of his broader view of who is and who is not divided from the Holy Church?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ithcus,

Well put! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

I’d like to know what Pope John Paul II’s supposed heresy is? Is it merely his insistence upon the efficacy of baptism by desire and the possibility that a non-Catholics’ act of perfect contrition MAY be salvific? Seems like traditional Catholicism to me.

Is the Pope impeccable? Not at all. Yet we are bound to be subject to the ordinary universal teachings of a pope who is also a sinner and whose private opinions may be absolutely wrong or imprudent.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ithcus,

Do you have a source for Pope John II excommunicating anybody with regard to the controversy over the Beatific Vision?

The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia has a slightly different version of events:

Pope John XXII
newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm

In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death [on 4 December, 1334] he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.

I don’t see anything about excommunicating Dominicans in the account above. If you have another source I could persuse, I’d appreciate it.

BTW, the accusation of heresies notwithstanding, the Pope was just as free to opine on this matter as any other theologian, as there had not been (and still doesn’t appear to be) a formal definition on this point.

God bless,

Dave

 

[WanderingCathol]

itsjustdave1988:
Eeerrrrrrrrrrrrr… no you haven’t.

That is not a quote from Pope John Paul II. Unless I missed it somewhere, you have never attempted to quote Pope John Paul II on this thread. Instead, you assert that he is a heretic yet provide no scholastic effort to back up the claim.

God bless,

Dave

Ummm yes I have. read your catechism.

 

[WanderingCathol]

Because the Catholic Church has never taught that Jews, Muslims, and heretics are incapable of the desire for baptism and an act of perfect contrition.

** what documents are you reading?**

All mankind are potential converts to the Catholic faith. Pope Innocent III specifically “lumped” a jew as being saved by baptism by desire. Observe,

** a jew that wants baptism is no longer a jew in faith. This should be obvious to you. The early christians where jews but they were christian jews. They were not jews practicing judaism.**

Pope Innocent III’s decree in 1206 concerning a Jew who desired baptism but was not able to be validly baptized: “If, however, such a man had died immediately, he would have flown to his heavenly home at once, because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (Dz 413)

** see above**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ummm yes I have. read your catechism.

Is that what you consider a “quote”??? Read your catechism? Can you bit a bit more specific, you know, as if you were actually attempting to support your position scholastically?

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Because the Catholic Church has never taught that Jews, Muslims, and heretics are incapable of the desire for baptism and an act of perfect contrition.

what documents are you reading?

Can you show me something to the contrary?

a jew that wants baptism is no longer a jew in faith

How about if he desired baptism only implicitly? Because Pope St. Pius X speaks not only of explicit desire, but of implicit desire, correct? The pagan centurion Cornelius would not have considered himself a Jew or Christian, yet was he united to the Holy Church by his implicit desire? Notice, he never expressed his desire to be baptized in Acts 10, did he? Others, not knowing what was in his heart perhaps would have considered him an infidel, although by divine revelation, we know otherwise.

What source of Catholic tradition has ever excluded the proposition that other Cornelius-like “God fearing” non-Christians are blessed by God, whether Muslim, Jew, pagan, or heretic?

Here’s a quote (“to speak or write (a passage) from another usually with credit acknowledgment”) you ought to consider …

Main Entry: im·plic·it
Pronunciation: im-'pli-s&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin *implicitus, *past participle of implicare
1 a : **capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed **

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online)

What is not expressed, can be implied by something else, as in the manner in which one lives.

From St. Paul, speaking of the pagan Romans:

Rom 2:15 “they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them”

And from St. Thomas Aquinas:

man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; … So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit (Summa Theologica, III, 69, 4)

In your theology, what exactly is implicit desire for baptism? Is it your contention that Jews, Muslims, or heretics cannot have implicit desire for baptism? If so, why?

God bless,

Dave

 

[WanderingCathol]

itsjustdave1988:

Can you show me something to the contrary?

How about if he desired baptism only implicitly? Because Pope St. Pius X speaks not only of explicit desire, but of implicit desire, correct? The pagan centurion Cornelius would not have considered himself a Jew or Christian, yet was he united to the Holy Church by his implicit desire? Notice, he never expressed his desire to be baptized in Acts 10, did he? Others, not knowing what was in his heart perhaps would have considered him an infidel, although by divine revelation, we know otherwise.

What source of Catholic tradition has ever excluded the proposition that other Cornelius-like “God fearing” non-Christians are blessed by God, whether Muslim, Jew, pagan, or heretic?

Here’s a quote (“to speak or write (a passage) from another usually with credit acknowledgment”) you ought to consider …
What is not expressed, can be implied by something else, as in the manner in which one lives.

From St. Paul, speaking of the pagan Romans:

Rom 2:15 “they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them”

And from St. Thomas Aquinas:
In your theology, what exactly is implicit desire for baptism? Is it your contention that Jews, Muslims, or heretics cannot have implicit desire for baptism? If so, why?

God bless,

Dave

It is not my theology but of the orthodox popes.

Btw, if the teaching of the modernist church didn’t contradict the traditional teachings, why all the scrambling to defend them and making them fit. It is damage control gone amock.

 

[milimac]

Thank you EUSTACHIUS for the link to Mortalium Animos. I think it’s important to remember this quote from Matthew 16:18-19:

“…And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
I don’t think Pope John Paul II would deny the truths of Pope Pius’ encyclical, but may perhaps feel a refinement in how it is stated or even a “loosening” of how it has been wrongly interpreted, such as the prohibition of ever praying with non-Catholics, is warranted.

I don’t know all the circumstances that brought Pope Pius to write the encyclical in 1928, but from how I read it, it sounds like he was very concerned about the watering down of the Catholic faith in the name of Christian unity, and that this must be fiercely guarded against. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church! This is still a point the Pope makes today – the Catholic faith cannot be compromised in the name of unity. If you have read Pope John Paul’s book, “Crossing the Threshhold of Hope”, you will see that he completely agrees (p. 139 quotes Lumen Gentium 14 – “For this reason men cannot be saved who do not want to enter or remain in the Church”).

I think you’re fretting too much over something that’s not there.

In addition, if snippets of Mortalium Animos are taken out of context, one can interpret them incorrectly – also a problem of Christian Fundamentalists with the Bible. Common sense would indicate that perhaps you have applied a too rigid interpretation of this encyclical:

• Should Catholics refrain from inviting non-Catholics to Mass or to any event where prayers might be said?
• Should Catholics not pray with non-Catholic relatives around the dinner table?
• Should priests refuse invitations to speak or give benediction at public schools (if the opportunity even still exists today – it used to)
• Should the Church, knowing full well that most RCIA candidates are non-Catholic and perhaps not even Christian, refuse to pray with them or encourage them to come to Mass? (Obviously, to offer Communion to non-Catholics WOULD be a scandal, because it is professing a communion which does not yet exist)
• If there are no admirable truths in other religions, then how does the Holy Spirit even begin to call people of these religions into the fullness of truth? Any search for the truth must at least begin with that crack of light in the doorway that entices you to open the door further.
• Do we also scandalize the Church if we pray with poorly catechized Catholics who have an incorrect understanding of the fundamental truths of the faith (such as our own young children)?

I think it is a sin not to recognize the dignity of people who are honestly searching for the truth. They may not have found the source of the fullness of truth, but cutting them off from us probably won’t do much to help that. Your concern seems to be that the Catholic faith not be watered down in the name of unity. I think the Popes throughout the years, Pius XI and John Paul II included, would completely agree with you, as do I.