Sad Day For Catholic Apologetics

[Hananiah]

What if your little brother starts following the Pope's example? Then do you tell him that it's wrong?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Perhaps we are speaking of two different things here, or else I'm just an idiot and do not understand your point, lol. I am speaking exclusively with regards to Papal teachings (ie, someone can faithfully submit to the teachings of a Pope who, say, has a mistress, or a Pope who takes a corpse to trial). I am not saying that the person would mindlessly mimic the Pope's actions, but rather, would not speak out against the [i]teachings[/i] of the Pope.

Bear with me, and let me try to illustrate my point using a modern example:

Many catholics in the States believe that Pope John Paul II is not "open" enough and that the laity should have a larger role in the Mass (hence the other thread about EMoHC's)

Lets call these, for simplicity's sake (not offensively intended, and, I know, not an accurate term) the "liberals"

Many catholics believe that Pope John Paul is being "too open" (hence the thread about the Church and Ecumenicism)

Lets call these, for simplicity's sake (not offensively intended, and, I know, not an accurate term) the "conservatives"

Now in either case, the individuals in question feel that the Pope's [i]teaching[/i] is not correct, and not good for the church. I am simply arguing that it is not wrong for a layperson to, out of a desire for unity among the faithful and genuine humility, follow the Pope's teaching.

How would I feel if my little brother did the same? Good, I'm glad that he desires unity and is humble enough to submit when it is in the interest of the Church.

Or are you asking if, for example, a Pope had an extramarital affair, how would I feel if my little brother followed suit? If that is what you meant, then we [i]are[/i] talking about two different things. In no way shape or form am I condoning all the actions of the Popes - they are imperfect as we all are imperfect.

But I see a large difference between actions like those (affairs, corpses on trial, etc) and the exercising of his role as Head of the Church when he teaches.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Hananiah]

I think this applies to teachings as well as conduct. The best example would be Pope John XXII's teaching that no one would see the beatific vision until after the last judgment. No one who lived at the time would have been obligated to assent to this teaching.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 23 2004, 12:09 AM'] I think this applies to teachings as well as conduct. The best example would be Pope John XXII's teaching that no one would see the beatific vision until after the last judgment. No one who lived at the time would have been obligated to assent to this teaching. [/quote]
Furthermore, one would have been in serious theological error (heresy?) to assent to these teachings.

[Donna]

Jeff, that is a beautiful example you gave in reply to me.

Can it apply within a [i]continual[/i] state of renewal and updating? I guess you would answer, "aye".

The unity is first and foremost a unity of the Faith. That is the object and yardstick.

Are all teachings -I don't speak of ex-cathedra or dogmatic ones- based upon the theology and philosophy of the Church through the ages? If they are, there is solid ground. If they are not, that means that something is shifting.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Pope St. Pius, I would have to disagree with you on your last point, due to the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the church. I would argue that, if the faithful maintain a stance of submission to the Holy Father and the Magisterium, they cannot be wrong for it.

Allow me to use your example: If the faithful submit to the teaching of the Holy Father, simply because he is the Vicar of Christ on earth, and the Magisterium, even when the Holy Father is John XXII and his teachings are "wrong" there is unity in the Church. If these same people remain submissive, then when the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from being overcome (ie when a later Magisterium and Pope declare these teachings to be incorrect) the faithful will continue to submit.

In this way, it is the Spirit, not the audacity of the laity, that chastises false teachings. Also, there is another argument that I would like to bring up.

If you are claiming that all people who believe the teachings of a Pope who happens to be wrong are in "theological error" or heresy, the you would have to posit the following:

A Pope is teaching a professor and a young swineherd. The professor, who understands the teaching to be untrue and speaks out against the Pope is "correct" while the young boy, uneducated and unable to come to the same conclusions as the professor, believes the Pope, knowing that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and so stands in "heresy" and his salvation is questionable.

I would put forth a more palatable drawing of the story:

A Pope is teaching a professor and a young swineherd. The professor, who understands the teaching to be untrue humbly submits to the Pope, waiting until the proper time (after the Pope is dead) to call the teachings into question. The young boy, uneducated and unaware of the problem at all, submits to the Holy Father out of humility as well. When the Holy Father passes away, the professor, and those like him, address the Magisterium and, when the New Vicar of Christ is chosen, the teaching is discarded. The professor submits to the new teaching, as does the uneducated boy.

Thus, there is a common thread of humility, unity, and charity among the laity, and, ultimately, the Church is never led astray.

[PedroX]

Jeff,

What is the highest goal for the laity? Is it submission?

peace...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Jun 24 2004, 08:17 AM'] Jeff,

What is the highest goal for the laity? Is it submission?

peace... [/quote]
The highest goal of the laity is holiness, which is achieved only through the obedience of faith.

[mmmerf]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Jun 13 2004, 08:17 AM']
Amazing, we should petition the Catholic Church to change Protestant, to Sedevacantists, that way we could all be united again!
[/quote]
...except then we couldn't be united to the Pope.

Which would be awful. I mean, he throws the best parties... (Jubilee Year, anyone?)

Sede Vacante = 'Empty Chair' Implying that the chair of Peter is empty. Or one roman asking another roman on the XI o'clock trireme to Crete if the seat next to him is taken, as in, 'Ave, sede vacante?' ('Hi, is this seat empty?')

I kid, I kid.

I used to believe that the chair of peter was empty. I mean, I've been at papal audiences. He stands up all the time. Often he'd leave his coat though... or have one of the cardinals save his spot...

Still kidding.

Seriously, tho. I think the two canons can be reconciled through the definition of heretics and schismatics noted above. Someone who willingly and spontaneously accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church cannot be called a heretic, because to be a heretic one must [i]knowingly persist[/i] in error. And if they believe what the church teaches, then how can they be in error?

Anyhow. It seems an awfully fine point on which to cause such grave scandal. This has led me to conclude that

[u]Conclusion 1.[/u] This Mario fellow is a bit of an egotistical chucklehead. What about all the faithful who have been led to Christ by the pope's work? If even one of them stumbles into sin because the aforementioned chucklehead shook their faith in the church, well, then his brash rejection of Juan Paulo Secundo comes at far, far to high a price. Furthermore, I feel this strengthens the following postulation:

[u]Postulation 1. (Thumper's Postulation)[/u] If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.

Thankyou annnnd goodnight.

Dave

[Aloysius]

welcome, you're cool

[jasJis]

Wow, great posts. I got bored with this and came back and read it and enjoyed it.

Really good post, Apotheon. The goal of laity is Holiness which is achieved through obedience. Disobedience to the Church runs the risk of causing scandal by spreading doubt about the Holy Spirit's influence and presence in the Church. For certain audiences, your views may not cause this scandal, for others, it could very well rock their faith. That's why dUSt had decided that certain Catholic versus Catholic debate has no place here at Phatmass. It's not that the debate, in and of itself is wrong, it's that he believes that it isn't appropriate for a significant portion of the vistors here and the risk of causing faith weakening scandal is greater then the need to provide a forum for the discussion here.

Like the old saying goes, "It's not a lie if you believe it." Being wrong and spreading the error is one thing if you don't believe you're wrong. Being wrong and spreading the error is a different matter if you know you're wrong but you do it anyway. Both are error and can be considered Sin, but the second is Mortal.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 24 2004, 07:28 AM'] A Pope is teaching a professor and a young swineherd. The professor, who understands the teaching to be untrue and speaks out against the Pope is "correct" while the young boy, uneducated and unable to come to the same conclusions as the professor, believes the Pope, knowing that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and so stands in "heresy" and his salvation is questionable. [/quote]
Sounds like the swineherd has invincible ignorance.

[Archbishop 10-K]

The thing about Mario is that many of his apologetics articles are just so good! I don't know how many times I've looked at his site for SDA rebuttal stuff. It's like he went to the Dark Side all of a sudden.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 22 2004, 10:09 PM'] I think this applies to teachings as well as conduct. The best example would be Pope John XXII's teaching that no one would see the beatific vision until after the last judgment. No one who lived at the time would have been obligated to assent to this teaching. [/quote]
Is this a Popes personal "teaching". Or was this a Church teaching. Because Church teachings, on faith and morals, cannot be in error.

I wouldn't suggest my son to simply follow the "Pope's teachings". But rather to follow the Churches Teachings, which the Pope should be teaching, but doesn't always - in action or word. The Holy Spirit doesn't clean up messes after they've been made. The Holy Spirit prevents messes from happening. The Pope can talk about whatever he wants. But when he is declaring a teaching of the Church, then he is infallible.



mmmerf, you are cool!



JeffCR07,

Word!

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hananiah, you and I both know that the metaphor is flawed, but it contains within it the truth of my point: The professor has two options, how is the second one either:
1.) not valid
2.) worse than the first

All I'm saying is that humility and obedience to the Holy Father and the Magisterium are not sins, even if the teaching in question is overturned at a later time. Moreover, that obedience brings unity amongst the laity and the clergy, which has been stated by the Magisterium a myriad of times as supremely good thing.

I guess, to use a little phrase to sum up my argument:
"The only thing humility hurts is Pride"

It will not draw us away from the Church, nor will it harm us in our path towards communion with God.

I'm not saying that every has to agree with everything the Pope/Magisterium says. What I'm saying is that it is better when there IS disagreement to simply respect that authority of the one God has made Head of his Church, in the interest of unity among the faithful.

[Guest JeffCR07]

*nods to Jake*

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jun 24 2004, 01:23 PM'] Is this a Popes personal "teaching". Or was this a Church teaching. Because Church teachings, on faith and morals, cannot be in error. [/quote]
It was the Pope's private opinion, of course. And it contradicted the traditional teaching of the Church. This s why so many people argued against him.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 24 2004, 01:28 PM'] All I'm saying is that humility and obedience to the Holy Father and the Magisterium are not sins, even if the teaching in question is overturned at a later time. Moreover, that obedience brings unity amongst the laity and the clergy, which has been stated by the Magisterium a myriad of times as supremely good thing. [/quote]
If the personal opinions of the Holy Father contradict the perennial teaching of the magesterium one is obligated to correct him. Erroneous teachings are injurious to the salvation of souls, even when they come from the mouth of the Pope.

[mmmerf]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jun 24 2004, 01:23 PM'] mmmerf, you are cool!

[/quote]
:tiphat:

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hananiah, I am not arguing that the Pope should not be corrected, I am arguing that the Pope should not be corrected by the [i]laity[/i]. It is not within our authority. If a group of bishops feel it is their perrogative, in the best interest of their sheep, to question the Pope, fine, but the sheep should not question the shepard.