According to the dogma of the Catholic Church, the Pope, the successor of Peter, is infallible. In religion, dogmas are dogmas. There have been schisms since the beginning of Christianity and today everybody is free to go and establish their own church, as opposed to the good days of yore when heretics god killed en masse and in impressi…
According to the dogma of the Catholic Church, the Pope, the successor of Peter, is infallible. In religion, dogmas are dogmas. There have been schisms since the beginning of Christianity and today everybody is free to go and establish their own church, as opposed to the good days of yore when heretics god killed en masse and in impressive fashions by the orthodox believers (of course, both sides since the beginning of history have held to be the one true believers).
But these priests suffer from the very main sin of the wokery they abhor: they pretend to victimhood where none is to be found. Their problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to be acknowledged as being right by a church whose hierarchy they despise and whose edicts they refuse to recognise.
There is a very long history of Catholics disagreeing with the Pope while worshipping his Office at the same time.
I grew up Catholic and even attended Catholic high school, but I fell from grace when I realized that I just couldn't live up to the Church's ideas of "mortal" sin, for which THIS teenager was subject to. Use your imagination here.
What truly turned me away was when while in confession the priest intoned, "When is this going to stop?" I was speechless and humiliated. He then followed up with "Do you know what would happen to you if you died right now?" I responded with "I guess I'd go to hell", to which he confirmed, "That's right! You'd go straight to hell!". Now THERE is the mercy that Jesus spoke of! (Sarcasm, if you missed it.)
I never returned, but I DID find mercy in the Jesus of the bible a couple of years later when a street preacher button-holed me one day at college and introduced me to salvation by grace. I couldn't help but violate church "laws" but discovered that God is only interested in a humble and contrite heart, and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice. God does not change human nature, but He DOES give us a path to follow that SHOULD lead us to a better life.
You can disagree on doctrine, but you cannot tell me, or anyone, for that matter, that their experience is wrong and that they believe a myth.
And before any of the devout try to tell me that this particular priest was not representative, I must say, CORRECT! It was years later that I met priests who could have helped me because they KNEW the Jesus of the Bible and endeavored to live like it.
Kat Timpf's book "You Can't Joke About That" contains a very similar (and very amusing) account of why she left the Catholic Church. You describe how uncomfortable you felt having to confess your "mortal sins" multiple times to an unsympathetic priest. Imagine a young girl going through the same experience, with a trip to hell supposedly awaiting her if she died before confessing her latest "transgression".
While these people could branch off and form their own church. What's wrong with wanting to or at least trying to "right the ship" in the church they grew up in? First choice should be to reconcile the Catholic church with it's historical teachings and beliefs. Last resort should be to form a new denomination.
Tony, the Catholic Church is a top-down hierarchy. Change from the bottom up is just not possible except in extreme situations. These priests know this to be true, and some of them were disciplined for matters of conscience, NOT for violating official Church doctrine.
The Pope is only infallible within very strict limits; I think that there have only been two times in history that infallible pronouncements were made.
The Pope is only infallible hen it comes to declaring things regarding Faith and Morals. There is a continuity passed down through the centuries starting with the Apostles regarding our faith and what is moral behavior. This is called the ordinary Magisterium ( teachings of the Church) and Catholics should feel obliged to accept them
You are correct Heide- there were 2 times that Popes have declared formally an infallible teaching, both having to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her Immaculate conception- that she was conceived without sin, and the second, that she was assumed into heaven after her death.
Regarding this article- it is hard for all of us to be obedient to anyone. These priests did take a vow of obedience to their Bishop and the Church(led by the Pope. They would do well to practice the virtue of Humility.
That being said- Pope Francis has done (and said)some troubling things, but he is the legitimate Pope and we must pray for him. God is ultimately in charge.
There is a good book, Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid that talks about the papacy through history. Maybe a longer answer than you needed!
Sorry for not having specified further, simplifications always cause misunderstanding.
Yes, the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope (which exists only since 1870) only applies as such when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of faith and 'mores', which means customs/usages/habits, even if we tend to translate it with morals, and includes a much larger sphere than what we usually put under 'morals'. The Vatican Council (each and every one of them) is infallible in its edicts.
The edicts, both of the Pope and the Council and descended through the hierarchy, are what matters, the dogmas established and the decisions taken according to canonic law. The Catholic Church is strictly hierarchical and obedience to the dictates of the hierarchy has always been one of its major tenets.
While there has always been plenty of disagreements (for church/ecclesia means community, and community is made of people), rebelling against one's superiors in the hierarchy (and their decree) is for a Catholic to put oneself outside of the Church.
Strictly in a matter of law, to deny the authority of the Pope, the validity of his magisterium, or the authority and validity of the Councils, the hierarchy, and the decrees that descend from these institutions, is to put oneself outside of the Catholic Church.
And it is not just the denial of Papal authority when speaking ex cathedra that falls into this category. The Constitution Pastor Aeternum is clear, even if the passage (at the end of Chapter 3) is constantly carefully abridged out in English translations:
Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.
If then someone should say that the Roman Pontiff only has an office of inspection or direction, but not also the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and customs, but also in matters pertaining broadly to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; or that he should have only the greater parts, but not the whole fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, either over each and every community, or over each and every pastor and faithful; be this anathema.
To insult the Pope and to declare the Pope to be an heretic should be anathema to a Catholic and especially to an ordained minister. One can disagree with decrees and directives but must obey them until they are declared invalid or lifted by the proper authority. Unorthodox clerics and theologians have been silenced and suspended a divinis by ecclesiastical authorities for two thousand years: it is not a particularly 'woke' practice. It is how the Catholic Church works -- only when unorthodox positions become widespread enough they seep into the hierarchy and then become orthodoxy. In the meanwhile, the minority positions are held to respect and obedience.
I just find the position of these priests and their followers extremely ridiculous besides distasteful -- and mightily 'woke' in the demands of a fringe minority to rule the majority. Why do they stay in a Church which they seem to despise so much?
Historically, many popes clearly lived nonbiblical lives and failed. That dictum of infallibility is not biblical and is a man made control edict. The real doctrine should read that the pope has final say on any conflicts in the church that cannot be reconciled at lower levels or through critical read of scripture. There are areas where scripture are conflicting or not explicitly clear in regard to how we worship.
Exactly--non-Catholics hear of papal infallibility and think it applies to everything a pope says. (And thank you for including the correct definition of the much misunderstood immaculate conception.)
Incidentally, if that was referred to me, I am non-Catholic and not Christian and an Agnostic by choice, but not by education.
But I made a broad statement worthy of being picked at, and it was worthily picked at. Hopefully I managed to detail it better.
And unfortunately a vast number of Catholics make that same mistake about the Immaculate Conception. For a very large number of people the complexities of dogmas are too much to deal with and always have been -- most of the work of the medieval Church was done striving to correct (often with physical eradication) the misinterpretation of some tenet of doctrine. Heresies of ignorance are much more common than heresies of the reasoned intellect.
People thinking "immaculate conception" refers to Jesus being conceived by a virgin drives me absolutely NUTS. Even more nuts than when people say "vagina" when they mean "vulva," and when people think there's an apostrophe in "Howards End."
Too funny- I was at the Vatican museum and we can to a painting depicting the Blessed Virgin Mary at the time of the Annunciation and our tour guide described it as the Immaculate Conception. When I explained his error- he looked at me like I was an idiot 🙄. In his defense- he was an art major not a theology student😂
According to the dogma of the Catholic Church, the Pope, the successor of Peter, is infallible. In religion, dogmas are dogmas. There have been schisms since the beginning of Christianity and today everybody is free to go and establish their own church, as opposed to the good days of yore when heretics god killed en masse and in impressive fashions by the orthodox believers (of course, both sides since the beginning of history have held to be the one true believers).
But these priests suffer from the very main sin of the wokery they abhor: they pretend to victimhood where none is to be found. Their problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to be acknowledged as being right by a church whose hierarchy they despise and whose edicts they refuse to recognise.
It is pretty ridiculous.
There is a very long history of Catholics disagreeing with the Pope while worshipping his Office at the same time.
I grew up Catholic and even attended Catholic high school, but I fell from grace when I realized that I just couldn't live up to the Church's ideas of "mortal" sin, for which THIS teenager was subject to. Use your imagination here.
What truly turned me away was when while in confession the priest intoned, "When is this going to stop?" I was speechless and humiliated. He then followed up with "Do you know what would happen to you if you died right now?" I responded with "I guess I'd go to hell", to which he confirmed, "That's right! You'd go straight to hell!". Now THERE is the mercy that Jesus spoke of! (Sarcasm, if you missed it.)
I never returned, but I DID find mercy in the Jesus of the bible a couple of years later when a street preacher button-holed me one day at college and introduced me to salvation by grace. I couldn't help but violate church "laws" but discovered that God is only interested in a humble and contrite heart, and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice. God does not change human nature, but He DOES give us a path to follow that SHOULD lead us to a better life.
You can disagree on doctrine, but you cannot tell me, or anyone, for that matter, that their experience is wrong and that they believe a myth.
And before any of the devout try to tell me that this particular priest was not representative, I must say, CORRECT! It was years later that I met priests who could have helped me because they KNEW the Jesus of the Bible and endeavored to live like it.
Kat Timpf's book "You Can't Joke About That" contains a very similar (and very amusing) account of why she left the Catholic Church. You describe how uncomfortable you felt having to confess your "mortal sins" multiple times to an unsympathetic priest. Imagine a young girl going through the same experience, with a trip to hell supposedly awaiting her if she died before confessing her latest "transgression".
While these people could branch off and form their own church. What's wrong with wanting to or at least trying to "right the ship" in the church they grew up in? First choice should be to reconcile the Catholic church with it's historical teachings and beliefs. Last resort should be to form a new denomination.
Tony, the Catholic Church is a top-down hierarchy. Change from the bottom up is just not possible except in extreme situations. These priests know this to be true, and some of them were disciplined for matters of conscience, NOT for violating official Church doctrine.
The Pope is only infallible within very strict limits; I think that there have only been two times in history that infallible pronouncements were made.
The Pope is only infallible hen it comes to declaring things regarding Faith and Morals. There is a continuity passed down through the centuries starting with the Apostles regarding our faith and what is moral behavior. This is called the ordinary Magisterium ( teachings of the Church) and Catholics should feel obliged to accept them
You are correct Heide- there were 2 times that Popes have declared formally an infallible teaching, both having to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her Immaculate conception- that she was conceived without sin, and the second, that she was assumed into heaven after her death.
Regarding this article- it is hard for all of us to be obedient to anyone. These priests did take a vow of obedience to their Bishop and the Church(led by the Pope. They would do well to practice the virtue of Humility.
That being said- Pope Francis has done (and said)some troubling things, but he is the legitimate Pope and we must pray for him. God is ultimately in charge.
There is a good book, Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid that talks about the papacy through history. Maybe a longer answer than you needed!
Sorry for not having specified further, simplifications always cause misunderstanding.
Yes, the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope (which exists only since 1870) only applies as such when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of faith and 'mores', which means customs/usages/habits, even if we tend to translate it with morals, and includes a much larger sphere than what we usually put under 'morals'. The Vatican Council (each and every one of them) is infallible in its edicts.
The edicts, both of the Pope and the Council and descended through the hierarchy, are what matters, the dogmas established and the decisions taken according to canonic law. The Catholic Church is strictly hierarchical and obedience to the dictates of the hierarchy has always been one of its major tenets.
While there has always been plenty of disagreements (for church/ecclesia means community, and community is made of people), rebelling against one's superiors in the hierarchy (and their decree) is for a Catholic to put oneself outside of the Church.
Strictly in a matter of law, to deny the authority of the Pope, the validity of his magisterium, or the authority and validity of the Councils, the hierarchy, and the decrees that descend from these institutions, is to put oneself outside of the Catholic Church.
And it is not just the denial of Papal authority when speaking ex cathedra that falls into this category. The Constitution Pastor Aeternum is clear, even if the passage (at the end of Chapter 3) is constantly carefully abridged out in English translations:
Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.
If then someone should say that the Roman Pontiff only has an office of inspection or direction, but not also the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and customs, but also in matters pertaining broadly to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; or that he should have only the greater parts, but not the whole fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, either over each and every community, or over each and every pastor and faithful; be this anathema.
(My translation -- original text: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-pastor-aeternus-18-iulii-1870.html)
To insult the Pope and to declare the Pope to be an heretic should be anathema to a Catholic and especially to an ordained minister. One can disagree with decrees and directives but must obey them until they are declared invalid or lifted by the proper authority. Unorthodox clerics and theologians have been silenced and suspended a divinis by ecclesiastical authorities for two thousand years: it is not a particularly 'woke' practice. It is how the Catholic Church works -- only when unorthodox positions become widespread enough they seep into the hierarchy and then become orthodoxy. In the meanwhile, the minority positions are held to respect and obedience.
I just find the position of these priests and their followers extremely ridiculous besides distasteful -- and mightily 'woke' in the demands of a fringe minority to rule the majority. Why do they stay in a Church which they seem to despise so much?
But there is plenty of madness in the world.
I know; I attended Catholic school and college, where Theology was a required subject.
Historically, many popes clearly lived nonbiblical lives and failed. That dictum of infallibility is not biblical and is a man made control edict. The real doctrine should read that the pope has final say on any conflicts in the church that cannot be reconciled at lower levels or through critical read of scripture. There are areas where scripture are conflicting or not explicitly clear in regard to how we worship.
Exactly--non-Catholics hear of papal infallibility and think it applies to everything a pope says. (And thank you for including the correct definition of the much misunderstood immaculate conception.)
Incidentally, if that was referred to me, I am non-Catholic and not Christian and an Agnostic by choice, but not by education.
But I made a broad statement worthy of being picked at, and it was worthily picked at. Hopefully I managed to detail it better.
And unfortunately a vast number of Catholics make that same mistake about the Immaculate Conception. For a very large number of people the complexities of dogmas are too much to deal with and always have been -- most of the work of the medieval Church was done striving to correct (often with physical eradication) the misinterpretation of some tenet of doctrine. Heresies of ignorance are much more common than heresies of the reasoned intellect.
People thinking "immaculate conception" refers to Jesus being conceived by a virgin drives me absolutely NUTS. Even more nuts than when people say "vagina" when they mean "vulva," and when people think there's an apostrophe in "Howards End."
Too funny- I was at the Vatican museum and we can to a painting depicting the Blessed Virgin Mary at the time of the Annunciation and our tour guide described it as the Immaculate Conception. When I explained his error- he looked at me like I was an idiot 🙄. In his defense- he was an art major not a theology student😂
We are obviously twins separated at birth. 🤣