What if the Pope was wrong?

[ProVobis]

What about communities like the Baptist community, in which a person can be “once-saved, always-saved?” If that person commits a mortal sin afterwards, does God still use the mechanism of the Baptist community to save that person?

This is a good question as maybe most Baptists don’t believe in the same grave matter as Catholics, such as artificial birth control, Easter duty, Friday penance, etc. That said, it has been reported that Baptist hold higher moral standards than Catholics (I don’t necessarily agree but they did excommunicate Bill Clinton) so maybe we should look to them for guidance.

 

[ProVobis]

You can be wrong on aspects of faith and morals, the Pope cannot. He is infallible on issues concerning faith and morals.

As pointed out many times, his infallibility is limited to pronouncements made EX CATHEDRA. These must be well defined and accepted by the universal Church. I’ll leave it to theological scholars, doctors of the Church, and ecumenical councils to interpret other pronouncements to the extent of their infallibility.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

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."
.

Piuswoman, you are totally correct. One small thing however was left out. To be part of the Magisterium. one must be in union with the pope and fellow bishops. Not excommunicated.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ProVobis]

Where does the Church teach that the statement or commentary of a Pope is binding on any and all future Popes forever?

Technically you’re correct. But if a Pope has made an “error” of any kind, the sooner it’s corrected, the better.

 

[piouswoman]

Piuswoman, you are totally correct. One small thing however was left out. To be part of the Magisterium. one must be in union with the pope and fellow bishops. Not excommunicated.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

How do you explain that Archbishop LeFebvre was always in union with the pope and fellow bishops until they drifted away from Tradition with their modern novelties and ideas based on modern philosophy? The great Archbishop, a holy and dedicated priest, always held fast to the Traditions of the Catholic Church, which does not change, because the truth cannot change. His excommunication was not only unjust, but not in keeping with Canon Law.

Here is a quote from Archbishop LeFebvre:

“I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church’s magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power are set by the ends for which it was given to Christ’s Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this I am not expressing a personal theory.
Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from resposibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even the Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known with certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when the Papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by the Pope is infallible.”

 

[ProVobis]

Do you now eat meat on Fridays? it use to be a mortal sin, but that has been loosed, as it was discipline, not dogma.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Eating meat on Friday was considered a grave matter by the Church. That’s what made it a mortal sin. It is no longer so grave except in Lent. It is dogma to the extent that we accept Friday as the day Christ died for us. If the Church chose Thursday evening for mandatory communion, that would be discipline based on Scripture and dogma, and it would be grave enough to be a mortal sin. But she hasn’t.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I have to reject your first paragraph. He was in willful and open disobedience with his actions. That in and of itself does not bespeak holy and pious to me. If I consider other great saints, they would agree with that assessment. St Padre Pio himself, when forbidden to celebrate mass publicly refused to let people, his superiors and others fight this order. His response was “Obedience. In all things obedience”. We all know the outcome.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Eating meat on Friday was considered a grave matter by the Church. That’s what made it a mortal sin. It is no longer so grave except in Lent. It is dogma to the extent that we accept Friday as the day Christ died for us. If the Church chose Thursday evening for mandatory communion, that would be discipline based on Scripture and dogma, and it would be grave enough to be a mortal sin. But she hasn’t.

**Major correction **- It was not dogma, it was discipline. Dogma does not change. Discipline can.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ProVobis]

**Major correction **- It was not dogma, it was discipline. Dogma does not change. Discipline can.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

My point is that you can’t necessarily separate dogma and discipline. You make it sound as if all discipline is subject to the current whims of the Pope. It isn’t.

 

[elts1956]

My point is that you can’t necessarily separate dogma and discipline. You make it sound as if all discipline is subject to the current whims of the Pope. It isn’t.

I think what DeaconEd is saying is that not all disciplines are Dogma, ie. eating meat on Friday, but ALL DOGMAS ARE DISCIPLINE. Not subject to the whims of the Pope. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between Dogma and discipline at a quick glance because we have the tendency to confuse Tradition, those Dogmas and Doctrines which are intrinsic to the beliefs of the Catholic Church and tradition, those beliefs and rituals that have been practiced for eons, but can still be changed.

 

[consumedconvert]

I ran across this quotation in a book of Saints I checked out from the Church library this morning. Food for thought:

"You ought to have suffered all things rather than have caused a schism in the Church. To die in defense of its unity would be as glorious as laying down one’s life for its faith."
St. Dionysius of Alexandria to Novatian

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

My point is that you can’t necessarily separate dogma and discipline. You make it sound as if all discipline is subject to the current whims of the Pope. It isn’t.

Again you are wrong. Dogma and discipline are two entirely different things. Dogmas are tenants of our faith which we must believe and never change. Discipline itself can change. Contrary to the assertions of some, the pope does not capriciously change discipline at a whim. Any change is well thought out before hand.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Jeanette_L]

I ran across this quotation in a book of Saints I checked out from the Church library this morning. Food for thought:

"You ought to have suffered all things rather than have caused a schism in the Church. To die in defense of its unity would be as glorious as laying down one’s life for its faith."

        St. Dionysius of Alexandria to Novatian

Interesting find you have brought to us. I’m sure if we all looked, we could find many more like it. But we tend not to look for these things, and we see what happens when we decide not to take too great a notice of them when we do find them.

Thanks for posting this.

 

[JReducation]

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

I understand the difference. I was speaking about those who don’t understand it.

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.

I read his book a long time ago. But I find that he stays in the head. This is a major drawback in his conclusions. He states all the right documents and the right history etc. But unlike Bonaventure, he lacks the balance between the head and the heart.

Bonaventure realized that the head has to say to the concerned heart, “one has to take a leap in faith and trust Christ’s promises to the Church.”

St. Bonaventure also reflected on the teachings of St. Francis when he thought about the abuses and mistakes that he saw in the Church and remembered what Francis had always said, “the spirit of truth can be clouded, but it can never be undone; because the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Truth. No matter what sins man may commit, they are powerless over the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit will always prevail. It is our duty to be sons of the Church in communion with the Vicar of Christ.”

The Archbishop also leaves out another teaching of St. Francis, St. Catherine and St. Teresa, all great reformers. The mission of the a priest is to bring all men to Christ through the Church in union with the Vicar of Christ, not despite him.

When speaking about obedience, the Archbishop quotes all of the right theological logic, but fails to uncover spirituality for his reader. We are not saved by theology, but by the spiritual life. The Fathers of the Church were not holy because of the truths that they uncovered. They were holy because they obeyed with great love and with great faith in Christ’s power to transform all things. The Archbishop fails to remind his reader that obedience is not just about law or when one can or can’t disobey. Obedience is something that we do because we love and we trust as Christ loved and trusted. Obedience is not about law, but about the cross.

In speaking of the Holy Father he is right when he says that the Pope is not God. However, he fails to remind his readers what the great saints of the Church have believed and lived by.

Even if the pope were the most sinful of men, he is the only one who holds the keys of the Kingdom and the only one who can bind and unbind. We do not worship the Pope, but we place our faith in the power to bind and in the power of the keys, because they were instituted by Christ. That power and those keys cannot fail.

This is the dynamic tension in good Catholic spirituality that is lacking in the Archbishop’s book. The tension that must exist between the heart and the head and with which all Christians must accept. As St. Bonaventure said, “This is the tension of the cross, vertical and horizontal.”

We have to learn to live with trials, conflicts and transitions. The Archbishop fails to remind his readers that the Church is not free of trials, conflicts and transitions. Instead he faults the bishops, popes, Vatican II as if they had invented trials, conflicts, transitions and the human condition.

He presents a deficient spirituality that attempts to convince that Tradition will exempt us or protect us from all of this.

A deficient spirituality is more dangerous than imperfect pastoral practices. The soul is saved by a solid mystical life. The Holy Spirit infuses the Mystical Life only into those who act with humility. The Archbishop fails to teach humility in his book.

JR

 

[ProVobis]

Again you are wrong. Dogma and discipline are two entirely different things. Dogmas are tenants of our faith which we must believe and never change. Discipline itself can change. Contrary to the assertions of some, the pope does not capriciously change discipline at a whim. Any change is well thought out before hand.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed B, prayers and blessings back.

I’m not a theologican and maybe you are, I don’t know. But since you seem to know everything that’s right and wrong here, maybe we should go through all the anathemas of Trent and you can tell me which ones are discipline and which ones are dogma so that I can understand better of what you’re trying to say. I’m very confused with your explanations and attempts at clarifications.

 

[ProVobis]

The Archbishop fails to teach humility in his book.

JR

JR, let’s face it. If the Archbishop had been any more humble, then we would have never had the nine Cardinals appointed by the Pope to discuss the issue of the Tridentine Mass. It’s easy to say in hindsight that he was excommunicated or disobedient because of this or that, but at the time he did what he had to do. Compare that to Father Phleger who (also) feels he does what he has to do but makes secular headlines wherever he goes. (I understand that as of this morning, he has been reinstated for his priesthood. Hmmm.) Now, I ask you, which one creates a dimmer view of the Church from the outside? Which one does more damage to the long-standing integrity of our faith?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Deacon Ed B, prayers and blessings back.

I’m not a theologican and maybe you are, I don’t know. But since you seem to know everything that’s right and wrong here, maybe we should go through all the anathemas of Trent and you can tell me which ones are discipline and which ones are dogma so that I can understand better of what you’re trying to say. I’m very confused with your explanations and attempts at clarifications.

I think maybe what you are missing is this. Violation of discipline can be mortally sinful. That does not make it dogma. Dogmas are such things as the true presence in the Eucharist, The Assumption, The Immaculate Conception. These will never change. Discipline (which has changed) was not eating meat on Fridays. When that was binding, it was not binding on every nation. e.g., It was binding here in the U.S., but not binding right across the border in Mexico. What the Church did here was to look at the appropriateness of the discipline, saw it was not being equally applied and corrected it. Hopefully this will help.
Prayers and Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JReducation]

JR, let’s face it. If the Archbishop had been any more humble, then we would have never had the nine Cardinals appointed by the Pope to discuss the issue of the Tridentine Mass. It’s easy to say in hindsight that he was excommunicated or disobedient because of this or that, but at the time he did what he had to do. Compare that to Father Phleger who (also) feels he does what he has to do but makes secular headlines wherever he goes. (I understand that as of this morning, he has been reinstated for his priesthood. Hmmm.) Now, I ask you, which one creates a dimmer view of the Church from the outside? Which one does more damage to the long-standing integrity of our faith?

The difference is that an Archbishop cannot ordain bishops without the explicit permission of the Pope.

Fr. Phleger is not a bishop. Why he was reinstated, that’s between him and his superiors. It’s none of our business.

But why the Archbishop was excommunicated had nothing to do with the liturgy. It had to do with the ordination of the bishops without the Pope’s consent. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict both felt strongly that there was no justification. They have the right to take this position. They also have a right to demand that all of the bishops of the Church act in union with the Bishop of Rome.

This was not an attack on the Archbishop’s character, it was a disciplinary action.

JR

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What people also forget is the simple fact that an individual bishop or archbishop does not pick who is to be ordained a bishop. They make recommendations to Rome, and the Holy Father picks the individual to be elevated to this position in the Magisterium. What was done, was to take over the role of the Holy Father is this case and say, I know better than you. It was more than just disobedience, it was a sin of pride in assuming a function that is reserved for only the pope in his role as Vicar of Christ for the entire Church. Thus **EXCOMMUNICATION. **
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[elts1956]

My point is that you can’t necessarily separate dogma and discipline. You make it sound as if all discipline is subject to the current whims of the Pope. It isn’t.

Deacon Ed B, prayers and blessings back.

I’m not a theologican and maybe you are, I don’t know. But since you seem to know everything that’s right and wrong here, maybe we should go through all the anathemas of Trent and you can tell me which ones are discipline and which ones are dogma so that I can understand better of what you’re trying to say. I’m very confused with your explanations and attempts at clarifications.

Dear Pro Vobis, You are not thinking straight. There should be no problem differentiating between “A Dogma is a discipline” and “A discipline is not a Dogma”. Perhaps to better understand what has happened in the Church re:Vatican II, you could list what you consider Dogma that you “think” has been changed since your basis of the Council of Trent and what you consider discipline. I am beginning to think that many Traditionalists believe that all disciplines are Dogma and there are no pronouncements or rules that are only discipline.???