K
KMG
Guest
Someone needs to read about the Arian crisis. There was a time when Athanasius was in an exceedingly tiny minority.
- Status
Emeraldlady
New member
K
KMG
Guest
Hardly “meaningnless references.”
Like I said, Amoris isn’t infallible.
Like I said, Amoris isn’t infallible.
B
billsherman
Guest
The problem with using this argument is, as many posters have noted, is that you run into trouble when someone responds “Humanae vitae isn’t infallible.” How do you know?
If YOU get to decide, there is no need for a Church. If the Church gets to decide (which, incidentally, it does), they need to be treated the with the same weight.
1
13pollitos
Guest
This has been answered clearly multiple times.
If something is spoken ex cathedra and/or is supported by doctrine and Tradition. Humane Vitae changed nothing. It is supported by doctrine (contraception is intrinsically evil has ALWAYS been doctrine) and Tradition (the Church has never swayed on this). That is how you know.
1
13pollitos
Guest
No one has said any such thing. It is wise to avoid blindly following anything.
K
KMG
Guest
Exactly. If something is ex cathedra or supported by Tradition, then it’s infallible. Otherwise, nope.
S
stpurl
Guest
Why is it a 'meaningless reference"? The Church does not live in a vacuum.
Nobody is saying, “The Arians were wrong back then, and the bishops/the Pope today are wrong, too, and the proof they are wrong today is that a situation with a similar type of division existed before.”
That would be wrong.
But people can say, “The Arians, who once held a majority of bishoprics and were agreed with by a majority of the laity, were, in fact, wrong. This situation shows that at some point the Church can face a similar crisis where the majority of bishops/laity can follow a wrong teaching.”
That would be correct.
Look at England in the 16th century. Every bishop but John Fisher caved to Henry VIII’s demands to separate the “English Church” from Rome. Every one of them. They all followed wrong teaching. The fact that they were consecrated bishops did not protect them from making theological errors, not just personally, but in performance of their office. It has happened, and it can happen, and the fact that it happens does not mean that "the gates of hell’ have prevailed.
Nobody is saying, “The Arians were wrong back then, and the bishops/the Pope today are wrong, too, and the proof they are wrong today is that a situation with a similar type of division existed before.”
That would be wrong.
But people can say, “The Arians, who once held a majority of bishoprics and were agreed with by a majority of the laity, were, in fact, wrong. This situation shows that at some point the Church can face a similar crisis where the majority of bishops/laity can follow a wrong teaching.”
That would be correct.
Look at England in the 16th century. Every bishop but John Fisher caved to Henry VIII’s demands to separate the “English Church” from Rome. Every one of them. They all followed wrong teaching. The fact that they were consecrated bishops did not protect them from making theological errors, not just personally, but in performance of their office. It has happened, and it can happen, and the fact that it happens does not mean that "the gates of hell’ have prevailed.
Emeraldlady
New member
What is happening now at Cardinal Burkes instigation is not a debate between bishops. It is a defiance of Pope Francis authority to teach. To teach the Catholic position on the death penalty, on evangelisation of the Jews, of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the internal forum, on the Catholic position on immigrants and on and on. Interestingly, a famous quote from the Bishops of the East during the Arian debate, which explained their support of the Nicene Creed was. “How, being bishops, should we follow a priest?” Even in those days of confusion there was supreme trust in the protection of papal authority by the Holy Spirit.
S
stpurl
Guest
I do not believe it is a ‘defiance’ at all.
Perhaps a closer reading of St. Paul (who was not a Pope) stating that he stood up to St. Peter and corrected him (St Peter, who WAS a Pope, who was acting in an incorrect way) would be a closer parallel.
Or those who spoke to Pope John XXII, who as Pope was teaching an incorrect teaching regarding the Beatific Vision.
Now you may (and you have) complain that Pope Francis is right, and the bishops wrong. But Pope Francis is not right 'because he is the Pope" and the other ‘wrong’ 'because they are not the Pope" (if indeed one is right and the other wrong).
If a person is speaking correctly, whether lay, bishop, or Pope, that person does so because the ‘speaking’ is true, not because, “I’m a lay person”, or “I’m a bishop” or “I’m a Pope” somehow make what I say true.
If a person, Pope, bishop, or lay, believes that another person (Pope, bishop, or lay) is speaking something that is not true, that person has a moral obligation (we’re assuming everybody is Catholic here) to stand up and say, “I believe what X says is not correct”, because his (or her) conscience, hopefully well-informed, requires that the truth be told, and that falsehood be corrected.
Should we not be assuming that rather than ‘defiance’, a bishop (or a Pope) is speaking what he truly believes, and doing so from charity?
I mean here we two are. I believe you are wrong in your judgment of what is truly being said/taught/ understood by Pope Francis AND by the bishops in this particular case. As a Catholic, I have an obligation and duty to say that I believe you are wrong, and to speak what I believe is true. Again, we can disagree, but we are not doing so maliciously, are we? I’m not trying to ‘one-up’ you so that I get more ‘likes’, or trying to send you off to suspension purgatory, or whatever; I’m not trying to get ‘points’, I’m just saying what I believe.
And I think that is what the bishops are doing.
And above all, I believe what they affirm as truths ARE truths, have been truths, and will be truths.
Perhaps a closer reading of St. Paul (who was not a Pope) stating that he stood up to St. Peter and corrected him (St Peter, who WAS a Pope, who was acting in an incorrect way) would be a closer parallel.
Or those who spoke to Pope John XXII, who as Pope was teaching an incorrect teaching regarding the Beatific Vision.
Now you may (and you have) complain that Pope Francis is right, and the bishops wrong. But Pope Francis is not right 'because he is the Pope" and the other ‘wrong’ 'because they are not the Pope" (if indeed one is right and the other wrong).
If a person is speaking correctly, whether lay, bishop, or Pope, that person does so because the ‘speaking’ is true, not because, “I’m a lay person”, or “I’m a bishop” or “I’m a Pope” somehow make what I say true.
If a person, Pope, bishop, or lay, believes that another person (Pope, bishop, or lay) is speaking something that is not true, that person has a moral obligation (we’re assuming everybody is Catholic here) to stand up and say, “I believe what X says is not correct”, because his (or her) conscience, hopefully well-informed, requires that the truth be told, and that falsehood be corrected.
Should we not be assuming that rather than ‘defiance’, a bishop (or a Pope) is speaking what he truly believes, and doing so from charity?
I mean here we two are. I believe you are wrong in your judgment of what is truly being said/taught/ understood by Pope Francis AND by the bishops in this particular case. As a Catholic, I have an obligation and duty to say that I believe you are wrong, and to speak what I believe is true. Again, we can disagree, but we are not doing so maliciously, are we? I’m not trying to ‘one-up’ you so that I get more ‘likes’, or trying to send you off to suspension purgatory, or whatever; I’m not trying to get ‘points’, I’m just saying what I believe.
And I think that is what the bishops are doing.
And above all, I believe what they affirm as truths ARE truths, have been truths, and will be truths.
Last edited:
1
13pollitos
Guest
Are you sure about that? It seems that many bishops and cardinals are indeed debating many things. Asking for clarification is not a defiance of the pope’s authority to teach. I am a teacher by profession. My students ask me questions when they don’t understand. That is how they learn. I am a mom. My children ask me questions if they don’t understand. I am a wife, a sister, a daughter, a friend…in all instances, when I am asked for clarification I consider it wonderful. It is wonderful because it means people care about me and what I am trying to communicate. It is wonderful because it prevents misunderstandings which lead to conflict and hurt feelings. It is wonderful because it means people are paying attention. Never have I thought a question of any type was an act of defiance. It is the complete opposite! Defiance would be not asking and instead doing exactly whatever they choose.
If you are referencing Cardinal Burke stating official Church teaching as it has always been as defiance, he is not alone. Several bishops and cardinals have been doing the exact same. Still, they are not defying the Pope. Especially since the Pope has not clearly said that changes are occurring, why, or how they can be reconciled with previous teachings. Pope Francis has not issued an order to silence Cardinal Burke. He has not removed him from the college of cardinals or stripped him of being a bishop. He must not consider it as defiance either. Pope Francis has removed others swiftly when he sees fit.
It seems you have been personally offended by Cardinal Burke, but Pope Francis has not seemed to find him unworthy of his title. There are others that he has found unworthy. Just something to think about.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
If ++Burke, +Schneider and the other signers of the Declaration had any intention of usurping the Pope (which they don’t), they would have done it long ago when AL came out.
K
KMG
Guest
Exactly. The pope isn’t right simply because he is the pope. And popes do not enjoy some blanket protection from the possibility of expressing error. Papal infallibility is extremely limited and narrow in scope.
1
13pollitos
Guest
Yes!!! It is extremely limited.
This might be helpful
5 Myths About Papal Infallibility Too Many People Still Believe (Maybe Even You!)
There are few things more “Catholic” in Catholicism than the pope, especially when it comes to the dogma of papal infallibility. Unfortunately, it’s also widely misunderstood. Here are 5 common myths about papal infallibility: Myth 1: Papal infallibility means the pope is never wrong...
www.churchpop.com
“ Myth 3: It means the pope can make up new doctrines
Truth : It’s actually the teaching of the Catholic Church that divine revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. The only thing the Church’s magisterium, which includes the pope, can do is defend, explain, and clarify the Word of God. The pope is not capable of revealing “new” truths, only correctly interpreting what God has already revealed”
There are five myths total in the linked article. Another thing that may be helpful is knowing only twice in 2,000+ years has a pope spoken ex cathedra. Both times were Marian Doctrines that we’re already widely known and accepted.
“There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).
But neither of these was earth-shattering to Roman Catholics, because these beliefs had been nurtured through devotion, prayer, and local teaching for centuries before becoming official papal teaching”
Emeraldlady
New member
This was more a disciplinary issue in the early Church and one that is no longer applicable. It is the decrees concerning faith and morals that have the guaranteed protection of the Holy Spirit.
This was an argument he had but was never taught in any official document.
I haven’t been arguing at all on a rightness/wrongness basis but I think you are revealing Cdl Burkes secret position unwittingly. That is that he not really confused. He believes the Pope is wrong and he is right.
This question has been asked a number of times during the thread. Who determines the correctness of a position? The non answer that keeps getting returned is ‘if it is an ex cathedra statement’. As far as I know there is only one ex cathedra statement. Or if it is in line with Tradition and doctrine. Which is another non answer. Who decides if something is in line with Tradition and doctrine? It seems people are arguing from a position of gnostic knowledge apart from the authority of the communion between the Pope and Bishops.
Emeraldlady
New member
I’ll ask you what I asked 13politics. How do you answer someone who believes the Pope was wrong to prohibit the chemical pill? (Bear in mind that there were many experts on both ends of the argument who believed that it had the same nature as natural family planning. ie. it was legitimate because they believed nfp was legitimate. Or it was evil because they believed nfp was evil.)
Because he has made himself so public for so many years now, we can see clearly that he is being moved on time after time for an inability to be collegial and synodal in addressing issues that require that Apostolic collegiality. He has involved millions of people in public argument forcing them to take a side against a Pope on matters they can’t possibly be theologically up to speed on.
The only iron that I have in this fire is to give my children and other people who are young in faith, a clear understanding of what the Pope represents and the very serious and holy nature of his teaching authority. It is one of the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. So even if Burke became Pope, a person that I find lacking in holy credibility and a frightening prospect, I would continue to say what the Church teaches. That the Holy Spirit guarantees that the Church can never teach error on faith and morals. That’s how convicted I am that when the Pope in communion with the Bishops makes an official teaching, I can trust to follow it and urge others to as well.
Last edited:
1
13pollitos
Guest
This is really bothering me. I have seen much less insult thrown at other cardinals and bishops result in removed posts, and much less insult to Pope Francis resulting in the same. How is it acceptable for all the negative posts about Cardinal Burke result in nothing?
1
13pollitos
Guest
This might help
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-are-dogma-doctrine-and-theology
Doctrine is defined for us. We don’t decide what is doctrine. If something is in line with doctrine it means it does not contradict doctrine (or dogma).
Tradition:
Catholic Tradition | beginningCatholic.com
Catholic Tradition is as essential as the Bible. It is important for understanding the Church, and the Catholic Christian faith!
www.beginningcatholic.com
Again, not something we decide. Tradition is handed down by Christ to His Church through the generations. It correlates with Scripture. If something does not contradict Tradition, it is in line with Tradition.
I truly hope this helps.
K
KMG
Guest
Because there is a long and scandalous history on these fora of Cardinal Burke being open for any sort of attack with no consequence.
A
AlbMagno
Guest
The same could be said about Pope Francis.
- Status