What if...?

[snowman10]

What if, hypothetically, a Pope said “The Church now approves of birth control and women ordination”? Would that mean that the Church really is not protected by Christ?

DU

p.s. I bring this up on the issue of Papal Infallability

 

[Dr.Colossus]

Yes, it would disprove Papal Infallibility. Thank God it will never happen.

 

[snowman10]

Are we positive that things such as women’s ordination is an unchangable teaching? What if a Pope did say “I go back on what the former Pope said…he was wrong”?

DU

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

snowman10:

What if, hypothetically, a Pope said “The Church now approves of birth control and women ordination”? Would that mean that the Church really is not protected by Christ?

DU

p.s. I bring this up on the issue of Papal Infallability

He can’t! These are two of the unchangable, infallible teachings of the Church.

 

[gelsbern]

Personally, nothing would surprise me coming from Rome.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a deep love for Rome, and the RC Church but once an inconsistancy is witnessed, it would not be surprising for others to crop up.

It’s funny how the infallible doctrine of women ordinations can never be changed, but it can be justified about the changes of the Mass in spite of the infallible doctrines of the TLM.

 

[snowman10]

gelsbern:

Personally, nothing would surprise me coming from Rome.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a deep love for Rome, and the RC Church but once an inconsistancy is witnessed, it would not be surprising for others to crop up.

It’s funny how the infallible doctrine of women ordinations can never be changed, but it can be justified about the changes of the Mass in spite of the infallible doctrines of the TLM.

Elaborate please.

DU

 

[Ahimsa]

snowman10:

What if, hypothetically, a Pope said “The Church now approves of birth control and women ordination”? Would that mean that the Church really is not protected by Christ?

DU

p.s. I bring this up on the issue of Papal Infallability

Not necessarily. I mean, how do you know that Christ isn’t behind the changes?

 

[Genesis315]

gelsbern:

It’s funny how the infallible doctrine of women ordinations can never be changed, but it can be justified about the changes of the Mass in spite of the infallible doctrines of the TLM.

Hmmm, I’m not sure there are infallible teachings concerning the TLM specifically. Remember, infallible teachings are part of the unchanging deposit of faith and morals. These things must be true always and everywhere. The TLM has not been used always and everywhere (even pre-VII). The eastern Churches all have different words of consecration. I’ve heard the “many” argument and I’ve seen it refuted. Is that what you’re talking about?

 

[snowman10]

Ahimsa:

Not necessarily. I mean, how do you know that Christ isn’t behind the changes?

Christ is behind the Church. The Church is here to help guide us and teach us. Since Christ promised us an unflawed authoritative institution for the teaching of the faith, than we must believe what the Pope says and recognize that when the Pope speaks on faith and morals, he is being guided by the Holy Spirit. I guess the reason I disagree with what you say is that I believe and trust in Jesus and the fact he left us the Church. I follow the Church because I follow Christ.

DU

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I may end up wishing I didn’t say this, but being that it was brought up, I think it’s only fair to quote the “Gentle Saint”

Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII (some details about the Beatific Vision, he admitted he was wrong after a great stir came up and theological inquiry was conducted); or be altogether a heretic, as Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did; Let another take his bishopric. - St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, p. 306, Article 6, Ch. 14

It really is a necessary defense of the Primacy of the Roman See, and in turn, an integral part of Papal Infallibility. Note carefully, that no council, not even an ecumenical one can depose a Pope. Therefore, in order for him to be deposed, he cannot be a Pope, but rather a heretic, and since Canon Law (#1325 of the "old numbering system) states that a heretic is not part of the Church, as does Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, much less can a man who is not part of the Church be the head of it. He can’t be “deposed” since his loss of office is ipso facto, all that is necessary is to declare such a one deposed (deprived of office).

Yes, that seems to be a necessary result of Papal Infallibility, that a true Pope cannot be a formal heretic.

I hope this thread is not closed due to that, but I didn’t say the “s” word. The question was asked, and clearly, the answer is, a Pope will not say that. If he did, he’s not the Pope!

 

[gelsbern]

snowman10:

Elaborate please.

DU

I do not wish to hijack this thread, I will however simply point you to the Papal Bull of Pope Pius V entitled Quo Primum. Pay particularly close attention to the following 2 paragraphs

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

The new rite it is referring to back in the 1500’s is the Traditional Latin Mass.

You can find the entire document here
unavoce.org/quoprim.htm

 

[Genesis315]

gelsbern:

I do not wish to hijack this thread, I will however simply point you to the Papal Bull of Pope Pius V entitled Quo Primum. Pay particularly close attention to the following 2 paragraphs

The new rite it is referring to back in the 1500’s is the Traditional Latin Mass.

You can find the entire document here
unavoce.org/quoprim.htm

The Bull was discipinary and not doctrinal and therefore not covered by infallibility. Sorry to hijack. I’m sure this has already been debated over and over again on this site anyway.

 

[Ghosty]

Gelsbern: I’m not seeing the inconsistancy. Care to further elaborate?

 

[mrS4ntA]

gelsbern:

I do not wish to hijack this thread, I will however simply point you to the Papal Bull of Pope Pius V entitled Quo Primum. Pay particularly close attention to the following 2 paragraphs

The new rite it is referring to back in the 1500’s is the Traditional Latin Mass.

You can find the entire document here
unavoce.org/quoprim.htm

purely a matter of discipline. Hardly a doctrinal matter. puff

 

[Reformed_Rob]

snowman10:

What if, hypothetically, a Pope said “The Church now approves of birth control and women ordination”? Would that mean that the Church really is not protected by Christ?

DU

p.s. I bring this up on the issue of Papal Infallability

Interestingly enough, just a statement like that would not necessarily be such a hair twister for Papal Infallibility.

There’s a lot of issues to birth control and women ordination. That sentence you proposed, if stated, hypothetically at least, could be set in the context of stipulatative definitions. As I understand it, NFP in the situation where the woman could die if she had to give birth again, could be defined as “Birth Control.” Also, women ordination could be referring to, say for instance, deaconnesses. That doesn’t have to mean Priests necessarily.

Basically, there’s lots of intricacies to any doctrine that must be in time worked out. Check out Cardinal Newman’s Essay on Doctrinal Development. Not that it’s official Church teaching, obviously not, but it’s a neat theory, and he sets forth some great arguments for the Papacy and Roman Primacy from like the first 7 centuries or so AD. He even says that it’s more obvious than the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

But the Pope should certainly be clear about what he’s setting forth. And in addition to the clarity of words, it should be demonstrated that it’s not a novel doctrine, but truly shown to be part of the ancient deposit of the faith.

 

[gelsbern]

Genesis315:

The Bull was discipinary and not doctrinal and therefore not covered by infallibility. Sorry to hijack. I’m sure this has already been debated over and over again on this site anyway.

Yes, and after a while it feels like :banghead:

anyway, I think we need to define doctrine and dicipline.

Doctrine: a truth whose acceptance is necessary for the faithful for salvation.

Discipline: conduct conforming itself to faith or precepts and measures for the practical guidance of the faithful.

To me discipline is things like, not eating meat on Fridays, Saturday Mass for Sunday Obligation, Days of Fast and Abstinence, Holy Days of Obligation.

If a mass is declared to be the only mass that is to be said from this day forwards, I feel it moves from discipline, to doctrine.

BUT, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Is male only priests a discipline or a doctrine?

As to the inconsistency, until the 1960’s Quo Primum was considered doctrine, then the lutheranization of the church happened. So again, if a doctrine can be viewed as merely discipline in regards to the Mass, what will keep it from happening in regards to women priests or birth control.

 

[snowman10]

Reformed Rob:

I may end up wishing I didn’t say this, but being that it was brought up, I think it’s only fair to quote the “Gentle Saint”

Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII (some details about the Beatific Vision, he admitted he was wrong after a great stir came up and theological inquiry was conducted); or be altogether a heretic, as Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did; Let another take his bishopric. - St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, p. 306, Article 6, Ch. 14

It really is a necessary defense of the Primacy of the Roman See, and in turn, an integral part of Papal Infallibility. Note carefully, that no council, not even an ecumenical one can depose a Pope. Therefore, in order for him to be deposed, he cannot be a Pope, but rather a heretic, and since Canon Law (#1325 of the "old numbering system) states that a heretic is not part of the Church, as does Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, much less can a man who is not part of the Church be the head of it. He can’t be “deposed” since his loss of office is ipso facto, all that is necessary is to declare such a one deposed (deprived of office).

Yes, that seems to be a necessary result of Papal Infallibility, that a true Pope cannot be a formal heretic.

I hope this thread is not closed due to that, but I didn’t say the “s” word. The question was asked, and clearly, the answer is, a Pope will not say that. If he did, he’s not the Pope!

Maybe I am not too intelligent or maybe I am just immature, but is what you just said a defense of the Catholic Faith? I think I do a pretty good job for a 19 year old but your post really did go over my head…haha. but you sound smart…

DU

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Genesis315:

The Bull was discipinary and not doctrinal and therefore not covered by infallibility. Sorry to hijack. I’m sure this has already been debated over and over again on this site anyway.

Yes it has. This battle produces only victors on both sides it seems.

 

[Genesis315]

gelsbern:

BUT, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Is male only priests a discipline or a doctrine?

Doctrines are true always and everywhere. The Sacrament of Holy Orders only being valid for males has been true always and everywhere. It is doctrine and a matter of the faith.

Discipline cannot become doctrine. Doctrines are true always and everywhere. They are Truths. Something cannot go from not being a Truth to being a Truth.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Genesis315:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gelsbern

BUT, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Is male only priests a discipline or a doctrine?

Doctrines are true always and everywhere. So the Sacrament of Holy Orders only being valid for males is doctrine and a matetr of the faith. It has been true always and everywhere.

Discipline cannot become doctrine. Doctrines are true always and everywhere. They are Truths. Something cannot go from not being a Truth to being a Truth.

true. the requirement of celibate priests, however, is merely a discipline.