What's wrong with trusting the Holy Father?

[Brennan_Doherty]

Consumed Convert, thanks for your original post.

As has been stated before, prudential decisions of the Pope are not infallible. I repost these observations from Fr. John Parsons (emphases in bold mine):

Sacrosanctum Concilium No. 54:

“A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and the “common prayer”, and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people… Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. Wherever a more extended use of the vernacular in the Mass seems desirable, the regulation laid down in article 40 of this Constitution is to be observed”.

Fallibility of Prudential Judgments

This is the paragraph that sank a thousand missals, and more than a thousand years of unity in the Roman Rite, which had been one of the principal factors in the emergence of a unified western civilization.

There is the famous story of how the Dominican Cardinal Browne urged the Council Fathers to beware of allowing the vernacular, lest Latin vanish from the liturgy within ten years or so. He was laughed at by the assembly, but as so often, the pessimistic reactionary proved to be more in touch with the flow of events than the optimistic progressives.

The Council Fathers’ incredulous laughter at Cardinal Browne helps to remind us that a general council, like a Pope, is only infallible in its definitions of faith and morals, and not in its prudential judgements, or in matters of pastoral discipline, or in acts of state, or in supposed liturgical improvements. It is thus false to assert that a Catholic is logically bound to agree with the prudential judgments a council may make on any subject. It is still more illegitimate to extrapolate from the negative immunity from error which a general council enjoys in definitions of faith and morals, to belief in a positive inspiration of councils, as if the bishops were organs of revelation like the Apostles, and their prudential decrees inerrant like the Scriptures. It is only a false ecclesiology and a false pneumatology that can lead to the exorbitant assertion that a council is “the voice of the Holy Spirit for our age”. Are we really obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit demanded the launching of a Crusade at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215? And must we hold that in 1311 the Holy Spirit dictated the Council of Vienne’s rules regulating the use of torture by the Inquisition? And is it *de fide *that when Alexander IV ordered those suspect of heresy to be tortured to confess their guilt, this was what “the Spirit was saying to the churches” on 15 May 1252? If so, are we to condemn the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 15 August 1997, which comes to us on the same papal and episcopal authority and which condemns the use of torture to extract confessions of guilt, and openly says that “the pastors of the Church” erred on the matter?

…No, this doctrine of the Infallibility of the Party Line simply will not do. It is not Catholic teaching that the Church is infallible in pastoral or prudential judgements. We are therefore logically free to hold that any council can be ill-advised when making these kinds of decisions, and thus ill-advised in allowing the conversion of the liturgy into the vernacular, even if that had taken the form of a direct translation of the 1962 Missal.

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_bonus_dec01.html

---

 

[PrayforMallory]

Cathars, Manichaeans and Ariens were not Protesteant but heretics in that they held different interpretations of certain doctrines which the Catholic Church claimed heretical ie. Gnostics (Cathars) did not believe that Christ had a human body, but only a spiritual one, not really familiar with he Manichaeans, but the Ariens claimed Christ was human, but not God.

Papal encyclicals do not contradict one another. I believe Pope Paul II and perhaps others stated that through the centuries, the Pope and Magesterium may understand more fully or perhaps look at a doctrine from a different view and thereby a different or enlightened interpretation of a doctrine may come about, but there is nothing that is contradicted.

If you look at Pope John Paul II’s Et Unim Sint regarding ecumenism, you will note that the Catholic Churche’s stance on no salvation for those outside the Catholic Church has been amended to another understanding. He says we must look again at what is meant by church. If we look at the meaning of Church, we will see that Protestant denominations have at least a part of the Catholic Church truth. In this way, they are then a part of the mystical body of Christ, ie. the Catholic Church and salvation is available. As for the non- Christian sects he states there is a means of salvation for them of which we don’t know. I certainly like this better than, “No salvation outside the Church” don’t you? Gives me hope for all.

It’s not so much a question of my wanting things to be one way or the other, just that I’m trying to learn about Catholicism, which admittedly I don’t know enough about. I’m not in the “Trad Camp” on this one, I’m just looking to understand so that I can better believe. I’m only a “trad” when it comes to art, architecture, and language issues. I just can’t understand some things, like why JPII (I respect him greatly) wanted to go around apologizing to everyone! He was a great man, and he was Pope. I don’t understand why we should have to go through all these mental gymnastics to interpret things.

On a final note, I love the Holy Father. He is just a lot smarter than me and this confuses me sometimes.

 

[elts1956]

I agree with you and found some interesting things written by St. John of the Cross, reiterating the ***understanding of revelation ***as time and necessity warrant. Note especially saying number one.

1. The Lord has always revealed to men the treasures of His wisdom and His spirit, but now that the face of evil more and more bares itself, so does the Lord bare His treasures the more.

He also speaks to trusting our masters and guides and learning obedience, which is more pleasing to God than any other service we can presume to render without it, as follows.

1. He who wants to stand alone without the support of a master and guide, will be like the tree that stands alone in a field without a proprietor. No matter now much the tree bears, passers-by will pick the fruit before it ripens.
2. The virtuous soul that is alone and without a master is like a lone burning coal; it will grow colder rather than hotter.
3. God desires the least degree of obedience and submissiveness more than all those services you think of rendering Him.

St. John of the Cross
Sayings of Light and Love

Blessings,
Jeanette

Hello. Want to add another :twocents: in discussing Pope Paul II’s document Et Unum Sint. What I really like about this document is that it continues to talk on a more postive note than with the negativity of earlier Popes and doctrines about Salvation for those not members of the Catholic Church. The emphasis in Ed Unum Sint is “salvation within the Church”. As such, those churches and communities having some of the truth Christ gave to the Catholic Church, may through the grace given to the Her by Christ may have some of the means of salvation. This does not however exempt them from becoming full members of the church with ALL it’s graces.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

With all the discussions, postings, quotes and arguments I have seen on this thread, I would resolve it totally (at least for myself) by knowing that I could not go wrong in following the Holy Father, The Vicar of Christ here on Earth, who has the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have always liked comfortable, secure positions. and I totally believe with every fiber of my being that to remain loyal to and faithful to the Holy Father, that would put me in exactly the position I would want to maintain.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[WILKM]

With all the discussions, postings, quotes and arguments I have seen on this thread, I would resolve it totally (at least for myself) by knowing that I could not go wrong in following the Holy Father, The Vicar of Christ here on Earth, who has the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have always liked comfortable, secure positions. and I totally believe with every fiber of my being that to remain loyal to and faithful to the Holy Father, that would put me in exactly the position I would want to maintain.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed, I agree with you totally. I love your posts!!

 

[Ghoti]

Maybe that is why she is an “old” lady. She just wanted you to have a long life. Mormons don’t drink** coffee, tea, alcohol, or smoke or chew**. On average they are healthier and live longer.
Just a smart remark. Don’t let it hijack the thread.:

Maybe it just **seems **longer.

 

[JReducation]

It is believed that no man has ever loved the papacy as much as St. Francis of Assisi, even though he lived under submission to Pope Innocent III and Pope Honorius, who seems to have gotten himself into some scrapes.

Despite their imperfections St. Francis always taught his friars that no one had the right to question the Pope on any matter, including sin. He said, that we need not follow another person’s example of sin, but we must submit to their authority in all other matters. He made a very important disctinction between following sin and following authority.

In his writings on St. Francis, St. Bonaventure said that what made Francis the saint of saints was his humility and his fidelity. He goes on to say that a man who is not humble does not know his place in the Kingdom of God. No matter what virtues he posesses, if he does not posess humility, his other virtues are like walking in a windstorm with a handful of sand.

As to fidality, Francis was faithful to the pope out of fidelity to his promise to literally immitate Christ. Christ submitted to the authority of the high priest and of Pilate for the salvation of all. Francis submitted to the authority of the Church and the Pope as an act of thanksgiving to Christ, despite the weaknesses. The only thing that Francis did not submit to was to sin.

St. Bonaventure says, "Because of his fidelity, our holy father Francis was elevated by Christ himself to regal honors as the Gospel says: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; enter into the joy of your master.’"

The Disciple and the Master: St. Bonaventures Sermons on St. Francis of Assisi by Friar Eric Doyle, O.F.M.

There is nothing wrong with submitting to authority, especially that of the Holy Father. The intelligent man can tell the difference between sin and authority.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

With all the discussions, postings, quotes and arguments I have seen on this thread, I would resolve it totally (at least for myself) by knowing that I could not go wrong in following the Holy Father, The Vicar of Christ here on Earth, who has the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have always liked comfortable, secure positions. and I totally believe with every fiber of my being that to remain loyal to and faithful to the Holy Father, that would put me in exactly the position I would want to maintain.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

You know, St. Paul admonished the early Christians not to pick sides, one Apostle against the other. Unity was much more important.

It is better to let the Church leaders, those who have genuine authority, debate amongst themselves and count on the Holy Spirit to guide. This is always how the Church has operated. Now it seems *everyone *sees themselves as authoritative leaders, I’m not sure where they get their ideas from, certainly not from Magisterial teachings, but from unauthoritative commentators it seems.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

You know, St. Paul admonished the early Christians not to pick sides, one Apostle against the other. Unity was much more important.

It is better to let the Church leaders, those who have genuine authority, debate amongst themselves and count on the Holy Spirit to guide. This is always how the Church has operated. Now it seems *everyone *sees themselves as authoritative leaders, I’m not sure where they get their ideas from, certainly not from Magisterial teachings, but from unauthoritative commentators it seems.

Disagreeing with a prudential decision and writing about it or praying for a change is not setting onself up as one who has actual decision making power.

I’m not sure where you get your ideas from, but I don’t have any idea where in the Magisterium it is required that Catholics set their brains aside, stand by regarding prudential decisions as if they are unimportant, and simply assume that of course the Holy Spirit directly guides prudential decisions.

 

[JReducation]

Disagreeing with a prudential decision and writing about it or praying for a change is not setting onself up as one who has actual decision making power.

I’m not sure where you get your ideas from, but I don’t have any idea where in the Magisterium it is required that Catholics set their brains aside, stand by regarding prudential decisions as if they are unimportant, and simply assume that of course the Holy Spirit directly guides prudential decisions.

Maybe it’s more like St. Francis and St. Bonaventure say it. It’s not that it’s a requirement of the Church to be brain dead, but the most noble sign of humility to obey even when something is disagreable(as long as one does not sin). Sometimes we have to think in terms of perfect humility rather than perfect prudence. As St. Bonaventure says, all of the other virtues without the humility of a Francis of Assisi are like sand in the wind.

I doubt that people like Francis, Teresa of Calcutta or Terese of Liseux were brain dead. Yet they were the most humble people in Christian history and the most obedient according to Mystical Theology.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Maybe it’s more like St. Francis and St. Bonaventure say it. It’s not that it’s a requirement of the Church to be brain dead, but the most noble sign of humility to obey even when something is disagreable(as long as one does not sin). Sometimes we have to think in terms of perfect humility rather than perfect prudence. As St. Bonaventure says, all of the other virtues without the humility of a Francis of Assisi are like sand in the wind.

I doubt that people like Francis, Teresa of Calcutta or Terese of Liseux were brain dead. Yet they were the most humble people in Christian history and the most obedient according to Mystical Theology.

JR

I certainly agree with the obedience part. As Dietrich von Hildebrand, who actually did personally alert the Pope when he believed a prudential decision was having adverse affects on the Church wrote, “We obey, but we do not agree.”

So yes, we have to obey in prudential decisions whether we agree with them or not. I’m just stating that for certain people (and probably not cloistered religious), raising a concern is when one believes a prudential decision is not good can be a beneficial.

And even though we must obey, there is no requirement to believe that every prudential decision must be wise and good and will bear good fruit, or is guided by the Holy Spirit.

And of course I wouldn’t think of any of those Saints as brain dead.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Don’t forget the words of St. Padre Pio. “Obedience, in all things obedience”.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JReducation]

Don’t forget the words of St. Padre Pio. “Obedience, in all things obedience”.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

St. Pio took his cue from his spiritual father, Francis, who took his cue from Christ crucified. Now, THERE is tradition at its best.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I certainly agree with the obedience part. As Dietrich von Hildebrand, who actually did personally alert the Pope when he believed a prudential decision was having adverse affects on the Church wrote, “We obey, but we do not agree.”

So yes, we have to obey in prudential decisions whether we agree with them or not. I’m just stating that for certain people (and probably not cloistered religious), raising a concern is when one believes a prudential decision is not good can be a beneficial.

And even though we must obey, there is no requirement to believe that every prudential decision must be wise and good and will bear good fruit, or is guided by the Holy Spirit.

And of course I wouldn’t think of any of those Saints as brain dead.

By the way, the Friars Minor are not cloistered religioius. They are an order of lay brothers. Father Francis was never a priest. Brother Bonaventure was a priest and a Cardinal.

Both believed that in prudential matters the mandate of Christ crucified should be applied to the letter, humility is best expressed by a loving obedience, even if one believes that one is right. As Dr. Hildebrand says, you disagree and you obey.

Father Francis said that all Christians must practice unquestioning obedience as Christ practiced it on the cross, without murmuring and without giving it a seond thought. Disagreements must be put aside as Christ but aside his fears.

This is the route to perfection union with the crucified Christ. It was from this spiritual experience that Bonaventure developed his theology of the mystical union, which Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross. Catherine of Siena, Therese of Liseux, Teresa of Calcutta and Padre Pio practiced in their lives.

St. Elizabeth of Hungary and St. Louis King of France were Secular Franciscans and they too lived by this rule handed down to them by the Seraphic Father. The experience of true humility was not for a religious order, but for the world.

I think this spiritual guidance has been lost on many lay men and women today. Today people seem very concerned about their rights as lay persons or as Catholics. But they do not focus as much on the virtues that give glory and praise to God and have a secondary effect of sanctifying everything that they touch in their daily lives.

St. Bonaventure reminds us that poverty is the primacy evengelical counsel and the perfect expression of poverty is detachment from one’s own opinion and one’s wishes as Christ detached himself in the Garden before his arrest.

So influence was Bonaventure by the religious experience of Francis and the Church Fathers, that it pained him when he joined the order to have to preach in French and Italian insted of Latin and use plainsong during the liturgy and the Divine Office, but he obeyed because Francis ordered it to be done for all generations of religious and secular Franciscans.

When I look at someone as intelligent as Bonaventure bow to a simple lay brother and obey without a second thought, even though he was a Cardinal, I find such obedience exemplary and totally in tune with Christ’s obedience on the cross.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

(This is in response to post #54 above):

Hi JR,

Yes, I know the Franciscans are not cloistered, I was referring to the Carmelites you mentioned.

Again, I certainly agree with the obedience part. Yet also, I know, for instance, that Cardinal Ottaviani, who at the time held Cardinal Ratzinger’s old job, published his Ottaviani Intervention laying out the reasons why he believed the New Liturgy was not a good idea. I believe he obviously did it not because he just liked the old Mass better and wanted to keep his personal preference going, but out of a genuine pastoral concern for the faithful. Would it have been more virtuous for him just to have said nothing at all? I don’t think so, especially when one considers his position and vocation in the Church.

Conversely, there were a number of clerics and theologians who were all set to sign the Ottaviani Intervention but declined at the last minute because some journalist got their names and was indicating that he might publish them early. So was their refusal a sign of true humility? I don’t fully know but I think it very well probably might have been a concern for what might happen to them if they signed it.

I would say the same thing for Von Hildebrand’s motives in approaching the Pope and sharing his concerns. I believe they were motivated by a genuine concern for the Church and the welfare of souls. Would it have been more virtuous to say nothing? No, not necessarily. In fact he may have invited a greater cross into his life because there were those who essentially said he was senile or had “lost it” when he wrote some of the things he did.

In the case of religious such as St. Bonaventure of course when you join an order you must submit to their way of doing things whether it’s your personal preference or not. And you must obey your superiors. I just think that in certain cases I mentioned (and others) not saying anything may not be a sign of virtue, but of a fear of man or of consequences.

God bless.

 

[JReducation]

(This is in response to post #54 above):

Hi JR,

Yes, I know the Franciscans are not cloistered, I was referring to the Carmelites you mentioned.

Again, I certainly agree with the obedience part. Yet also, I know, for instance, that Cardinal Ottaviani, who at the time held Cardinal Ratzinger’s old job, published his Ottaviani Intervention laying out the reasons why he believed the New Liturgy was not a good idea. I believe he obviously did it not because he just liked the old Mass better and wanted to keep his personal preference going, but out of a genuine pastoral concern for the faithful. Would it have been more virtuous for him just to have said nothing at all? I don’t think so, especially when one considers his position and vocation in the Church.

Conversely, there were a number of clerics and theologians who were all set to sign the Ottaviani Intervention but declined at the last minute because some journalist got their names and was indicating that he might publish them early. So was their refusal a sign of true humility? I don’t fully know but I think it very well probably might have been a concern for what might happen to them if they signed it.

I would say the same thing for Von Hildebrand’s motives in approaching the Pope and sharing his concerns. I believe they were motivated by a genuine concern for the Church and the welfare of souls. Would it have been more virtuous to say nothing? No, not necessarily. In fact he may have invited a greater cross into his life because there were those who essentially said he was senile or had “lost it” when he wrote some of the things he did.

In the case of religious such as St. Bonaventure of course when you join an order you must submit to their way of doing things whether it’s your personal preference or not. And you must obey your superiors. I just think that in certain cases I mentioned (and others) not saying anything may not be a sign of virtue, but of a fear of man or of consequences.

God bless.

I agree that to “keep one’s counsel” for fear of others or personal consequences in not a justifiable reason for silence. Notice my quotation marks.

I was not thinking of someone as holy as Dr. Hildebrand or his wife, whom I happen to admire very much. In fact I admire Dr. Hildebrand, because he epitomizes the kind of humilyt that existed between Francis and Bonaventure. Dr. Hildebrand shared his opinion with the proper authorities and the respect due to the persons and their office. He also taught that obedience was more important the agreement.

My target audience are those people who believe that their opinion overrides the requirement to be humble as Christ was humble. This is what we can learn from Bonaventure and Francis.

Bonaventure was a Cardinal, scholar, theologian and missionary. Francis was a lay brother, religious founder and reformer (though he didn’t know it). It is so interesting to see the exchange. Cardinal Bonaventure becomes Brother Bonaventure, while Brother Francis becomes Father Francis.

Bonaventure placed all of his theologial, liturgical and other opinions at the food of Francis, even when he felt uncomofortable doing it. Like Dr. Hildebrand, Bonaventure teaches the value of humility over opinion. This does not mean that Bonaventure never had an opinion of his own or that Francis didn’t. They both did. But each knew his role.

Bonaventure knew that even though he was a Cardinal in the Universal Church, once he entered the friary doors every evening, he was Brother Bonaventure. Regardless of what his superior intelligence told him was best for the Church and for the Order, Father Francis was the final authority.

This is the kind of honesty and virtue that we need today. We do not need saints who are brain dead. But we do not need thinkers who lack humility either.

As Bonaventure said, “the absence of humility turns all other virtues into a handful of sand that blows away in the wind.”

We have too many thinkers and not enough mystics. I’m using the term mystic very losely here.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I agree that to “keep one’s counsel” for fear of others or personal consequences in not a justifiable reason for silence. Notice my quotation marks.

I was not thinking of someone as holy as Dr. Hildebrand or his wife, whom I happen to admire very much. In fact I admire Dr. Hildebrand, because he epitomizes the kind of humilyt that existed between Francis and Bonaventure. Dr. Hildebrand shared his opinion with the proper authorities and the respect due to the persons and their office. He also taught that obedience was more important the agreement.

My target audience are those people who believe that their opinion overrides the requirement to be humble as Christ was humble. This is what we can learn from Bonaventure and Francis.

Bonaventure was a Cardinal, scholar, theologian and missionary. Francis was a lay brother, religious founder and reformer (though he didn’t know it). It is so interesting to see the exchange. Cardinal Bonaventure becomes Brother Bonaventure, while Brother Francis becomes Father Francis.

Bonaventure placed all of his theologial, liturgical and other opinions at the food of Francis, even when he felt uncomofortable doing it. Like Dr. Hildebrand, Bonaventure teaches the value of humility over opinion. This does not mean that Bonaventure never had an opinion of his own or that Francis didn’t. They both did. But each knew his role.

Bonaventure knew that even though he was a Cardinal in the Universal Church, once he entered the friary doors every evening, he was Brother Bonaventure. Regardless of what his superior intelligence told him was best for the Church and for the Order, Father Francis was the final authority.

This is the kind of honesty and virtue that we need today. We do not need saints who are brain dead. But we do not need thinkers who lack humility either.

As Bonaventure said, “the absence of humility turns all other virtues into a handful of sand that blows away in the wind.”

We have too many thinkers and not enough mystics. I’m using the term mystic very losely here.

JR

Good points, thanks JR. Or, maybe, too many talkers and not enough mystics. Yes, more mystics would be good.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Yes, more mystics would be good.

Amen to that my brothers
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[toughcritic]

I’ve read a number of posts–and indeed, received a few PM’s–stating that I and others are in a dangerous position because we choose “blind obedience” to the authorities of the Church.

Allow me to state where I stand. I believe that Holy Mother Church will never lead me astray, and that the human “feature” of our Catholic Faith that ensures the continuation and indomitability of our Catholic Faith on earth is the Papacy, the visible sign of unity within the Church.

I don’t know a whole lot. I’m a fairly recent convert, and I freely admit I need more cathechesis. But there if I had to choose only one reason that I converted to Catholicism just over a year ago, the Office of the Papacy would be that reason. I spent years looking for Truth, and finally I found someone who could give me that Truth, authoritatively.

I fully support the policies of the Papacy of Benedict XVI (may he live a hundred years!). I am very glad he allowed wider celebration of the TLM. At the same time, I myself prefer NO masses. But I say all that to let you know where I stand, and to help the thread not to get sidetracked. I am not opposed to the OF or the EF, nor do I oppose those who choose to prefer the EF. I know there are many brothers and sisters who prefer the EF but feel the same way about the Papacy that I do.

As for Liturgy, btw, I am no liturgist. I don’t know much about Liturgy. Someday I will learn more, and, Lord Willing, be able to think with the Church on liturgy. But in the mean time (and, I pray, afterward) I’ll trust HMC and the Pope to know what’s good for me, even in liturgy. It’s heady stuff; He is the head Shepherd one Earth; I’m just a Catholic laymen. I’ll let him tackle the big questions, and God Bless him for it.

The wider question I want to address is why should we, or why shouldn’t we, trust the Holy Father to guide us in matters of Faith and Morals? I understand the great value of learning to think with the Church. But until I am educated to the point at which I may fully understand the decisions the Holy Father makes, why not trust him?

I understand that Christ is the Corner Stone of our Faith. But I know of only one way to know His Will for sure. The knowledge of Christ, and of the will of Christ, comes to me through the Papacy, and through my Bishop who is in communion with the Pope–everything from the interpretation of the Word of God, to the way we worship God, to the way we are to live.

Agree or disagree, and why?

Congratulations! As I have said many many times I believe converts to our faith have a stronger sense of what the Catholic Church is all about than many of us who are “born” into the Church. After all, you sought it out because you had serious faith questions. I believe your belief and approach is totally correct. because over the 2000 years since the Church began we have had a number of Popes, over 260 and then some. Among those men, some good some bad, was the common thread that when speaking on faith and morals the Pope was infallible. That is a fact that even many Catholics do not fully understand. Our beliefs have never changed even though our detractors claim they have. That is the power and rock solid base our faith has even though every break-a-way religion has done so because of an errant interpretation of the Bible or some fashionable feel good fad of the day. Our rock is the Papacy as Christ stated to Peter. It cannot be denied by anyone. That alone puts every other religion in error. We now have had two of the greatest successors to Peter of all time: John Paul II and his own theologian, Pope Benedict XVI. Keep thinking as you do. You will be challenged, even by some of your fellow Catholics, but you know the truth.

 

[Alycin]

Don’t worry, I once quoted something JPII said and I was told I was silly for listening to JPII’s foolishness.

By the same person, I was told that I was bordering on heresy for trusting the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead of listening to “tradition”, whatever that means!