What if the Pope was wrong?

[piouswoman]

If the successors of Peter cannot declare new dogmas, because they were not handed down by the Apostles, how do we explain dogmas that were declared centuries after the death of the Apostles, especially to those who are not Catholic?

I listed many on a previous post. Just in case you missed them:

1. Hypostatic union - 5th century
2. Homoousios - 5th century
3. Theotokos - 2nd century
4. Papal infallibility - 19th century
5. Immaculate Conception -19th century
6. Assumption of Mary - 20th century
7. Purgatory - 2nd century
8. Canonization of saints - Middle Ages
9. Three orders of the priesthood - 1st century
10. Indisolubility of Solemn Vows made by Exempt religious orders

• Middle Ages

The Apostles never taught any of these.

JR

When the Church makes an infallible pronouncement, we are not to suppose that a new doctrine is being introduced. For instance, when the Holy Father in 1854 defined the Blessed Virgin’s Immaculate Conception as an article of faith, the infallible definition was not a proclamation of a new doctrine, but was merely an announcement of an article of faith true from the very beginning, and publicly defined only in order to make the dogma clear to all and to be believed as part of the deposit of faith left to the Church.

 

[JReducation]

When the Church makes an infallible pronouncement, we are not to suppose that a new doctrine is being introduced. For instance, when the Holy Father in 1854 defined the Blessed Virgin’s Immaculate Conception as an article of faith, the infallible definition was not a proclamation of a new doctrine, but was merely an announcement of an article of faith true from the very beginning, and publicly defined only in order to make the dogma clear to all and to be believed as part of the deposit of faith left to the Church.

Agreed that it was part of the deposit of faith, but unheard of by the Apostles and not taught by them, but much later after their death. All dogmas are part of the deposit of faith, but they do not become dogmas until they are proclaimed as such by a pope.

And what about the other nine items on that list?

JR

 

[piouswoman]

Agreed that it was part of the deposit of faith, but unheard of by the Apostles and not taught by them, but much later after their death. All dogmas are part of the deposit of faith, but they do not become dogmas until they are proclaimed as such by a pope.

And what about the other nine items on that list?

JR

They are all pronouncements which have their basis in Holy Scripture…again:
defined only in order to make the dogma clear to all and to be believed as part of the deposit of faith left to the Church.

Please elucidate number 10 for me.

 

[JReducation]

They are all pronouncements which have their basis in Holy Scripture…again:
defined only in order to make the dogma clear to all and to be believed as part of the deposit of faith left to the Church.

Please elucidate number 10 for me.

Yes, but remember, that it is not a dogma until the Pope says it is, even it it’s found in scripture. Not everything in scripture is a dogma and not all dogmas are in scripture. Many came from sacred tradition that developed over centuries.

As to number 10, religious men and women are divided into orders and congregations. Those who belong to orders belong to what are called exempt institutes of religious life.

They are exempt from many things, but the most interesting and doctrinal point is that their vow of celibacy makes it impossible for the grace of the sacrament of marriage and the marriage bond to happen. Neither Heaven not Church will allow the grace of the marriage to enter the life of the individual

A religious in solemn vows cannot validly marry within the Catholic Church. The vow invalidates the marriage, because the vow carries with it an ontological change in the individual that makes the person umarriageable. It leaves an imprint that cannot be removed. The individual is consecrated as he was at Baptism. It is an extension of Baptism.

Religious who belong to congregations make what is called a simple vow of celibacy. If they attempt a Catholic marriage, without a dispensation, the marriage overrides the vow. The grace of the marriage is present, the bond takes place and they are validly, though illicitly married. Because a simple vow of celibacy does not leave an indeluble mark on the soul.

Most religious belong to congregations.

The marriage is a sacrament which confers an ontological change on the individual, which the simple vow of celibacy does not. In such a case, the “renegade” relligious would be validly married and bound to the marriage and automatically excluded from the religious life.

Such is not the case with a solemn vow of celibacy. The individual continues to be a religious, the marriage is a fraud, because you cannot change somethingn or someone who has already been changed by Christ through the solemn vow. The religious is automatically excommunicated, but still a religious. Such was the case with Martin Luther. He was an Augustinian friar until the day he died, even though he was an excommunicated augustinian. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated, but what still a bishop. You cannot take away an ontological change, even through excommunication. Therefore, the mark of a solemn vow cannot be undone.

The only option left is to apply to the Holy See for a dispensation to marry, despite the vow. The vow remains in effect, but latent. When the individual is no longer married, the vow becomes effective again. The sacament does not delete a solemn vow of celibacy.

This has been a teaching of the Church that cannot be changed, since St. Benedict founded the first religious order in the west and St. Basil in the east.

The only religious who are bound by these vows are monks, firars, nuns and Jesuits.

Sisters and brothers who belong to religious congregations are not under solemn vows. They are in simple vows. Also friars who belong to congregations are not under solemn vows, such as the Franciscan Friars of the Eternal Word. But all Franciscans who belong to the order that St. Francis founded are affected by this doctrine, because they belong to an exempt religious order, not a congregation. Religious orders are considered essential to the life of the Church. Religious congregations are accidental to the life of the Church. They do not undergo an ontological change.

The Discalced Carmelites were the last community to be allowed to make vows under this doctrine. This is still in effect today.

This never entered the mind of the apostles. It was explored by the desert fathers, St. Benedict and St. Basil.

JR

 

[elts1956]

Popes are only infallible when they speak Ex-Cathedra. A Pope has to speak from the chair by making an Ex-Cathedra statement for Papal Infallibility to be used.

A Pope is a man. He is not a god. Therefore he must use his free will like any other man to serve God. A Pope can use his free will for good or evil, for truth or error.

A Pope can err in faith and morals. Papal infallibility only protects a Pope from never erring when he speaks Ex-Cathedra.

Pope John Paul II simply made errors in salvation and ecumenism. Pope John Paul II never used infallibility because he never made an Ex-Cathedra statement.

It is the ordinary constant Magisterium that is always true and infallible. The Magisterium is the official teaching of the Popes and bishops united to him over the centuries.

A Pope therefore must always be unity with the Magisterium. When a Pope contradicts the Magisterium, as Pope John Paul II did sometimes, they are wrong and their teaching is not considered part of the Magisterium.

I think if you re-read Et Unum Sint (Encyclical on Ecumenism) regarding what Pope John Paul II said about “salvation outside the church” you may get a different perspective on what he said. It is my understanding he did not re-define the doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church, but he did redefine the meaning of CHURCH. In this, he said, that all churches following the path of Christ have “some” element of truth, as taught by the Catholic Church, in them. To this exent, he said, members of these Churches are members of the Catholic Church and have means of Salvation. In no way did he state that those outside the Catholic Church have the same means of salvation as the FULL members of the CC.

 

[JReducation]

A Pope can err in faith and morals. Papal infallibility only protects a Pope from never erring when he speaks Ex-Cathedra.

When teaching faith and morals it is the one area that the Pope does not need to invoke infallibility. The Pope cannot err in teaching faith and morals. He may err in his personal life and be the greatest sinner in the world. He cannot teach error. The Holy Spirit guides every Pope in matters of faith and morals.

A pope may leave a matter open for future exploration and further development. That’s his perrogative as the holder of the keys of the kingdom. He can also bind and unbind in matters of faith and morals. This is part of his office.

For example, when popes defended geocentrism against Galileo, they made a mistake, but it was not a moral mistake or a doctrinal mistake.

They made a scientific mistake. They were protecting the faith based on the facts available to them at the time. They were not teaching something contrary to faith. They were teaching something contrary to scientific fact. Today they have rectified this.

In other words, Popes cannot teach something that is immoral or violates dogma. They can shed another perspective on dogma to make it more understandable and to explain its deeper beauty and deeper reality.

As time passes, each generation of popes studies what the previous generatioin taught and after much contemplation is able to explain it better and in more depth. This makes things soud different and sometimes as if they are in coflict. In fact they are not.

They are simply deeper explanations or additional perspectives that a previous pope may not have considered. When John Paul II said that there are means of salvation in other ecclesial communities he was not denying what had been taught by his predecessors. He was taking the concept of Church and exploring that at a deeper level, not the question about salvation outside the Church. He does not deny this.

What he does is engage in a dialogue with his predecessor and raises the question, what do we mean by Church and he arrives at a metaphysical reality that his predecessors had not included in their teachings. There is a physical Catholic Church, but there is also metaphyscial church that cannot be seen, but can be found in other faiths as well as ours.

This does not deny the need to come into union with the physical Church. It simply says that union is possible, because there is a spiritual union that already exists. He offers a message of hope to the Catholic Church and the world.

There is no error in presenting hope of unity.

In fact it’s very beautiful that our popes are so holy that they can enter into mystical union with God and see spiritual realities through the eyes of faith and reason.

We should be proud of our Holy Fathers.

JR

 

[PrayforMallory]

So let me see if I’m understanding this correctly.

The heart of the SSPX debate, is really a debate over the proper application of the doctrine of Infallibity?

 

[elts1956]

From our Catholic Catechism:

The deposit of faith which Jesus Christ entrusted to the Church is made up of two parts: Holy Scripture and Divine Tradition, this latter being composed of the truths passed down by word of mouth, and not written down till after the death of Christ’s Apostles and disciples, principally by the Fathers of the Church.

St. Paul bade the Thessalonians: “Hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15)

In a wide sense Tradition embraces the whole teaching of the Church, including the Bible, since it is only from the Church that we have the Bible. In a stricter sense Tradition includes only what was handed down orally from the Apostles.

Divine Tradition must be believed as firmly as the Bible because it also contains the word of God.

True to character PW you have ignored what was said previously and missed the point completely.:banghead:

FROM PW
No, the “truth” is the very words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ taught to the Apostles. The pope can only confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change.

ANSWER FROM ETHELZGUY
Then we would be limited only to the words that came from Jesus’ mouth, which would render “tradition” irrelevant.

---

 

[elts1956]

From our Catholic Catechism:

The deposit of faith which Jesus Christ entrusted to the Church is made up of two parts: Holy Scripture and Divine Tradition, this latter being composed of the truths passed down by word of mouth, and not written down till after the death of Christ’s Apostles and disciples, principally by the Fathers of the Church.

St. Paul bade the Thessalonians: “Hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15)

In a wide sense Tradition embraces the whole teaching of the Church, including the Bible, since it is only from the Church that we have the Bible. In a stricter sense Tradition includes only what was handed down orally from the Apostles.

Divine Tradition must be believed as firmly as the Bible because it also contains the word of God.

The Catholic Catechism was put together long after Christ died. How can it contain Tradition?

 

[JReducation]

The Catholic Catechism was put together long after Christ died. How can it contain Tradition?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is based on three solid stones:

1. Sacred tradition
2. Sacred Scripture
3. The teaching Magisterium

What PW is confusing is that the teaching Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit and can and does uncover hidden truths that are part of revelation, but have not come to light.

This does not mean that they are new truths. They are new to the hearer, because they were covert, but they were always there. PW is confusing the teaching of things that were never taught as being new, rather than something that was covert becoming overt.

JR

 

[piouswoman]

True to character PW you have ignored what was said previously and missed the point completely.:banghead:

FROM PW
No, the “truth” is the very words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ taught to the Apostles. The pope can only confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change.

ANSWER FROM ETHELZGUY
Then we would be limited only to the words that came from Jesus’ mouth, which would render “tradition” irrelevant.

---

I did? How?

 

[elts1956]

I did? How?

Enough said.

 

[piouswoman]

Enough said.

Come on, elt…you need to clarify for me.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=elts1956;3777074]I think if you re-read Et Unum Sint (Encyclical on Ecumenism) regarding what Pope John Paul II said about “salvation outside the church” you may get a different perspective on what he said. It is my understanding he did not re-define the doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church, but he did redefine the meaning of CHURCH. In this, he said, that all churches following the path of Christ have “some” element of truth, as taught by the Catholic Church, in them. To this exent, he said, members of **these Churches **are members of the Catholic Church and have means of Salvation.

I hope he didn’t redefine the meaning of “Church” As Pope Benedict stated protestants CANNOT have churches. Without apostolic succession they only can have ‘communities’. There is only ONE Church.

brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/you-are-not-real-churches-pope-tells-protestants/2007/07/11/1183833638282.html

"PROTESTANT churches have reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by the Pope insisting they were mere “ecclesial communities” and their ministers in effect phonies with no right to give communion.

The view that **Protestants cannot have churches **was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican ministry for doctrine. A commentary attached to the latest text acknowledged that his 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, had caused “no little distress”…But it added: “It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.”

 

[JReducation]

I can’t help but feel some compassion for those who are so attached to tradition that they go to the extreme of joining the ranks of societies such as the SSPX. I can understand a certain sense of nostalgia for how things were and wishing they were the same. Nostalgia is a normal human emotion. At times it can be very healthy; however, it can also be very dangerous.

In the case of those who associate with the SSPX, this search for tradition is dangerous. As I have posted in another thread, one is affiliating with a group of people who mean well, but are going about things in a very wrong way.

1. When you claim that a pope is leading the Church into error, you must have the authority to make such a claim. The bishops of the SSPX do not have this authority. Only a council of bishops has this authority. This too is part of tradition. In any previous case where there was a doubt as to the judgements of a pope, it was taken up by a council of bishops.
2. As noted in several places Bishop Felley has taken an antagonistic position toward Pope Benedict XVI. A bishop must always act in union with the Bishop of Rome. To publically challenge or question the Bishop of Rome is contrary to the role of any bishop. Cardinal Ratzinger disagreed with Pope John Paul on certain things, but he kept those opinions between him and the Pope. When the rubber hit the road, he assented to the Bishop of Rome. Ratzinger is not ignorant or blind. Therefore this is not blind obedience. This is a loving obedience or obedience based on love. It is not enough for Bishop Felley to say that SSPX is faithful to the Church, but to show no signs of love toward the Pontiff.
3. Once Bishop Felley and his brother bishops were excommunicated, the faculties to absolve from sin, perform legal marriages and preach are suspended. Those who received these sacraments from the Society are not receiving valid sacraments. What’s the use of going to a priest who does not have faculties to absolve you or to witness your marriage?
4. Then there is the question of whether the Post Vatican II popes are leading the Church into error. It is an established doctrine of the Church that the “Gates of Hell will not prevail against you.” Throughout history we have had popes who have made serious errors of judgement. However, the fact is that the Church is still here. We have had pope who knowingly committed crimes and sins, but the Church is still here. We do not have to fear that the Church will go belly side up.
5. In the end, if a pope or a bishop makes a mistake and the faithful follow, the moral culpability rests with the leadership, not with the individual who is trying to do the will of God. The fear of falling into error is really not a justification for falling into disobedience. Anyone can lead us to sin, but no one can force us to sin, not even Satan, much less the Pope. Disobedience is only justified when one is being asked to sin and one refuses to do so. The fact that the Pope says that we must look at the definition of Church from a different perspective and to explore what Christ means, this is not an invitation to deny the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church.” If in one’s conscience one believes that it is a sing to review our understanding of the Church, one does not have to depart from the authority of the Church. One can disagree on this one point and continue within the physical Church. But this is not what the SSPX and its supporters have done. Even the Society of St. Peter, which is grappling trying to understand ecumenism, has stayed within the boundaries of the Catholic Church and in union with the Pope, while admitting that ecumenism is a point with which they are uncomfortable. However, they have not declined to implement the rules of ecumenism set down by the Holy See. They have made their concerns known, but they do not see this as materially sinful. They simply believe that it won’t work the way that the Pope hopes it will. It’s a very different attitude. It’s not blind obedience, nor is it defiance.
6. Finally, SSPX has not only said that the Pope made a mistake, but in the interview with Bishop Felley last October, which is found on CAF, he says that they are waiting to see what the Vatican has to offer them. That’s not a position of a bishop who wants unity within the Church. That’s the position of a negotiator. I fail to understand how a rational Catholic can fail to see this leadership is not consistent with the traditional role of a bishop.

Just some food for thought

JR

 

[JReducation]

I hope he didn’t redefine the meaning of “Church” As Pope Benedict stated protestants CANNOT have churches. Without apostolic succession they only can have ‘communities’. There is only ONE Church.

brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/you-are-not-real-churches-pope-tells-protestants/2007/07/11/1183833638282.html

"PROTESTANT churches have reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by the Pope insisting they were mere “ecclesial communities” and their ministers in effect phonies with no right to give communion.

The view that **Protestants cannot have churches **was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican ministry for doctrine. A commentary attached to the latest text acknowledged that his 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, had caused “no little distress”…But it added: “It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.”

Pope John Paul did not redefine the meaning of the term “Church”. He approved Cardinal Ratzinger’s use of therm ecclesial communities. What he was working with was with the doctrine “Outside the church there is no salvation.”

He accepted the doctrine. He was trying to explain the meaning of the word Church and how the Church reaches out beyond her physical boundaries even to those who think that they do not belong to the Catholic Church.

He was able to prove that regardless of what many non Catholics believe, that they do not belong to the Catholic Church, that the reason they can be saved is because they are in connected to the Catholic Church, even though the union is imperfect and has to be made perfect by a full acceptance of the truth that subsists within the Catholic Church.

The best analogy that I can offer is genetics. Your distant relative is not immediate family, but you still share a genetic link, even though it may not be visible or even legally recognized, the truth is that you are related.

Those ecclesial communities that consider themselves outside the Catholic Church often have a Catholic gene that links them to the Church, regardless of what they believe.

This was John Paul’s point.

In essence, the spirit of Christ does use these communities as a means of salvation, because they have a Catholic gene. But this is not a new idea. This idea was promoted by the Franciscans for centuries. No one had ever remembered it. St. Leonard, a Franciscan Brother had already put this on the table at the same time that he had put on the table all of the elements of the Immaculate Conception during the early 1800s.

John Paul II used that as a point of reference and concluded that even though there is no salvation outside the Church, not everyone who believes that they are outside the church, truly are. They may be distantly linked, but linked nonetheless.

JR

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I think what you are talking about is Church (with a capitol C) and church (with a small c)
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[piouswoman]

I can’t help but feel some compassion for those who are so attached to tradition that they go to the extreme of joining the ranks of societies such as the SSPX. I can understand a certain sense of nostalgia for how things were and wishing they were the same. Nostalgia is a normal human emotion. At times it can be very healthy; however, it can also be very dangerous.

J.R. with all due respect, I think you are confusing tradition with a small “t” with Tradition with a capital “T”.

“But what is Tradition? It seems to me that the word is often imperfectly understood. It is equated to the “traditions” that exist in trades, in families and in civic life: the “bouquet” fixed to the roof of a house when the last tile is laid, the ribbon that is cut to open a monumeny, etc. That is not what I am referring to: Tradition does not consist of the customs inherited from the past and preserved out of loyalty to the past even where there are no clear reasons for them. Tradition is defined as the Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Magisterium down through the centuries. This deposit is what has been given to us by Revelation; that is to say, the Word of God entrusted to the Apostles ans transmitted unfailingly by their successors.”

The words of Archbishop LeFebvre from a book I highly recommend titled:
“An Open Letter to Confused Catholics”

Here are some things said on the back cover…

“The Archbishop writes with the authority of an outstanding missionary: superior General of the 6,000-member Holy Ghost Fathers, Apostolic Delegate to French-speaking Africa, and member of the Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council.”

“He records the reasons for founding his seminaries and lifts the curtain on his relations with Rome. In a key chapter on what Catholic obedience reallly is, he answers the charge of being a ‘rebel’.”

The book is controversial, but the author’s love for the Church is evident and he presents, charitably, clearly, and irrefutably a case no critic can answer."

It is such an excellent book…I think I will read it again.

 

[ethelzguy]

J.R. with all due respect, I think you are confusing tradition with a small “t” with Tradition with a capital “T”.

“But what is Tradition? It seems to me that the word is often imperfectly understood. It is equated to the “traditions” that exist in trades, in families and in civic life: the “bouquet” fixed to the roof of a house when the last tile is laid, the ribbon that is cut to open a monumeny, etc. That is not what I am referring to: Tradition does not consist of the customs inherited from the past and preserved out of loyalty to the past even where there are no clear reasons for them. Tradition is defined as the Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Magisterium down through the centuries. This deposit is what has been given to us by Revelation; that is to say, the Word of God entrusted to the Apostles ans transmitted unfailingly by their successors.”

The words of Archbishop LeFebvre from a book I highly recommend titled:
“An Open Letter to Confused Catholics”

Here are some things said on the back cover…

“The Archbishop writes with the authority of an outstanding missionary: superior General of the 6,000-member Holy Ghost Fathers, Apostolic Delegate to French-speaking Africa, and member of the Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council.”

“He records the reasons for founding his seminaries and lifts the curtain on his relations with Rome. In a key chapter on what Catholic obedience reallly is, he answers the charge of being a ‘rebel’.”

The book is controversial, but the author’s love for the Church is evident and he presents, charitably, clearly, and irrefutably a case no critic can answer."

It is such an excellent book…I think I will read it again.

And, reading a book by an Archbishop who was excommunicated is going to improve your faith and relationship with the HMC in what way?

 

[piouswoman]

And, reading a book by an Archbishop who was excommunicated is going to improve your faith and relationship with the HMC in what way?

Whether you wish to admit it or not, what the Archbishop has to say is very important if one is to give a fair and balanced opinion. Out of justice, it is tantamount that one read the history of Archbishop LeFebvre, the consecrations, and also, the history of Vatican II. To do any less in not fair, and an example of injustice:
St. Thomas Aquinas defines the virtue of justice as a constant and perpetual will to render to everyone his due. (II II, 58,1) From that definition we can see that it is a virtue that resides in the will and regulates those duties which we are strictly bound to discharge towards our neighbor. For this reason the habitual practice of justice - the constant rendering to others their due - is an excellent training of the will, for it brings the will under the guidance of reason enlightened by faith instead of our self-seeking inclinations. And on the contrary, one who is dominated by egoism and self-will will often fail to render to others their due.

rosary-center.org/ll51n3.htm