Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Papal Infallibility; and Infallibility of the Church
Topic Started: Monday, 21. January 2008, 23:07 (2,409 Views)
Gerard

I thought you would like that one.

Typical arrogance of the Curia/Vaticana. Luther was right and Rome was wrong. If Rome had treated Luther with some respect we might not be as divided as we are. But Rome was too busy collecting the indulgence money. If Pope Paul III caught up with Luthers arguments and initiated reform as a reaction to the Reformation then Paul was closer to Luther.

Just to make my position clear - I do not idolised popes. I do not make popes into idols. You will find no pictures of popes on my walls.

Quote:
 
As a scientist I would have thought you would welcome a few certainties


No, science is not about certainties. Its about the best therory we have until a better one comes along.

People do crave certainty but most educated people know there are only two.
I associate certainty with ignorance. In fact that takes me back to faith - I understand faith is believing in something you cannot be certain of.

Gerry

Edited by Gerard, Sunday, 19. December 2010, 21:11.
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Just thought to add ....

When Jesus said to Peter you are Peter etc etc ..
Peters first pronouncement was wrong. Not too much preaching on that is there?

And I am not sure that things have improved much since then. I mentioned the reformation, need I mention todays "issues".

So, I dont idolise, popes, cardinals or any of them. But I do recognise that this is the Church and I do recognise the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But He guides the Church. The people of God.

Gerry



"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Gerard
Sunday, 19. December 2010, 21:08

When Jesus said to Peter you are Peter etc etc ..
Peters first pronouncement was wrong. Not too much preaching on that is there?




OK are you now going to justify this statement?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Surprised I need to but here:

Quote:
 
Matthew 16:17-23
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Quote:
 
In a sense that is why not being a scientist I will defer to the knowledge and experience of a scientist and why I prefer to accept the authoritative teaching of church dogma to the Pope.


Science is powerful and has so much authority in the world because it relies on observation and experiment and not on the "authority" of individaul "scientists". In science if you dont believe me I can show you the evidence and you can challenge the findings and/or theories yourself. The authority lies in the experiments and the outcomes.

For people who live in this world (scientists and others) the feudal "You must believe it because holy mother church teaches it" or "the pope teaches it" does not cut much ice. can you demonstrate it? No. OK can you argue it? "Its infallible" Oh really?

Modern educated people are used to democracy and used to thinking. The argument you need to believe it because the pope says it isnt going to cut much ice in that arena either. It worked when the pope exercised supreme temporal and spiritual power and any dissent was crushed by retaliation and punishment of varying severity including burning. It doesnt carry much weight in a modern educated democracy. Indeed the memories of the things I have alluded to rob the institution of whatever "authority" it might legitimately claim.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Actually there are volumes nee I would go so far as to say libraries worth of sermons and preaching on the frailties of Peter. In the incident you quote was Peter speaking as the head of the church or as a friend of Christ.
His first act as Head of the Church is actually his sermon on the Feast of Pentecost, which is generally regarded as the birthday of the church and the beginning of the Apostolic Ministry.
You are also making a fundamental error Gerry of assuming that all that the Pope says is Infallible and that all proclamations from Rome carry the same weight.
Gerry you claim there are no certainties in science and condemn those who claim otherwise to be ignorant, well remind me never to be in your company when you put a put a match to a rag in a bottle filled with petrol.
Do not scientist work within certain principles and controls which verify the conclusions of a particular experiment or is it just smoke and mirrors and witchcraft.
I think you want a church in your image well forgive me but I am still of the view that I would sooner trust the opinions of the hierarchy. And of that I am certain.
Edited by Penfold, Sunday, 19. December 2010, 22:24.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Quote:
 
You are also making a fundamental error Gerry of assuming that all that the Pope says is Infallible and that all proclamations from Rome carry the same weight.


Is that not what you were doing when you said this:

Quote:
 
No Luther was close to Paul III since as Pope his is the standard by which others are judged.


?

And that was the bit that set me off about the catholic practice of turning the pope into an idol.

Gerry
Edited by Gerard, Sunday, 19. December 2010, 22:53.
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Quote:
 
I think you want a church in your image


I recognise the possibility of the truth in that statement.

But I want one that is less tyrannical.

Quote:
 
well forgive me but I am still of the view


We exchange views here - we make no apologies for doing so.

Quote:
 
that I would sooner trust the opinions of the hierarchy.


Quote:
 
And of that I am certain.


Even when they are not making infallible pronouncements?

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomais

Well written Gerard- 95% correct; especially if you are an Australian. Other than that- ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Gerry. you claimed to be close to Newman which prompted me to remark that many claim to be close to recognised authorities, Luther was by his intent and proclamation close to Paul III and to Leo X but not close enough to remain within the main body of the church. His cause was championed by some Germanic rulers who were seeking to break their domains free from Papal Temporal Authority others high-jacked Luther as a champion of some other heresies which he had not advocated. but all this is as I said subject to a much wider debate.
It is not a question of making Popes Idols or ignoring the failings of some it is about recognising that either the church has Authority or it hasn't? If it has then who holds it the pope and the hierarchy or with a group of folk in a bar. I do not recognise the Tyranny you speak of and as for recent events to do with the sins of a few well I cannot excuse the stupidity of certain bishops any more than I could excuse the parents who failed to act.
I do not think that Papal Infallibility is anything other than a recognition that as far as Church Teaching is concerned there is a point at which informed is all very well but in the end there is a need to give people clear guidance and this forum is littered with peoples comments demanding clear teaching,
If you want wishy washy and woolly well there are some who think the current Hierarchy are offering that personally I think that the popes since WW2 have all brought very valuable and compassionate leadership. I actually think that Paul Vi was very courageous to challenge the promiscuity of the 60's but I think he underestimated the power of the media. To launch Humanae Vitae in the year after the "Summer of Love" was understandable but 1968 was also the year that the Beatles headed of to India and students revolted throughout the western world were Hedonism was the order of day it is not surprising that a document that called for moderation and restated the teaching of the church on sexual morality which, as KatyA pointed out has been consistent since the earliest known documents, was never going to be well received. As I believe I mentioned once before the saddest thing of all is that I believe very few people ever actually read the document before they condemned it. It may be that some have read it since but through a prejudiced eye that this was a document that challenged us all. Courageous leadership and compassion not tyranny.
It is also worth repeating that the document which so many bash the church with and the Pope in Particular was not an infallible statement. In fact I would ask anyone to give and example of the tyranny and yet I wont because all that will follow is a tirade of complaints about various PPs and local Bishops and no acknowledgement that most Parishes are dominated not by the PP but by a select vestry of worthies who make life difficult for any priest who is foolish enough to move a statue half an inch.
The church is not a democracy it is a Theocracy.
As for parish management Rose made a very good point somewhere about the charity commission, In matters temporal then by all means relieve me and my colleagues of the headaches it brings. In my experiance however there are 10 people telling me how I should conduct liturgy for every one who offers to help with the bogs and drains and everyone is an expert on the latest thinking of the Pope but few will give me a clue on how to manage the budget of the parish in light of the latest government proclamation.
Edited by Penfold, Monday, 20. December 2010, 00:15.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Penfold2
Monday, 20. December 2010, 00:14
It is not a question of making Popes Idols or ignoring the failings of some it is about recognising that either the church has Authority or it hasn't? If it has then who holds it the pope and the hierarchy or with a group of folk in a bar.
I think that is the core of this debate.

"The Church" is not just the Pope or the hierarchy, it is all of us. In terms of authority, of course we require leaders to make decisions where there is not unanimity or consensus and to administer the Church on a day to day basis.

The problem as I see it is that the Church has been built up over centuries where authoritarian rule was the order of the day throughout the Western World and our hierarchy are still ingrained in a culture that those at the top of any organisation have ultimate authority and when they want other people's opinions, they will give them their opinions! This reaches its peak in the concept of Papal Infallibility; the Church nods it head that yes, the Church is everybody in the Church but if all the faithful agree on something, if all the bishops agree on it but the Pope disagrees and invokes infallibility, then he is right and everybody else is wrong. I know that has never happened and is never likely to happen in practice but that is what infallibility boils down to.

It seems to me that sensus fidelium was the main driving force behind the growth of the early Church but that it has become more and more buried beneath the autocracy of the last millennium or so. It's not an easy principle to apply to a Church of over 1 billion members scattered around the globe but I think some way has to be found to bring it back into play because it fits in very well with how people today behave and expect to be treated on a wider basis.

As I said elsewhere, I think the decline in vocations is going to lead to this anyway - when people don't have a priest to take charge, they will have to take charge themselves and I have every confidence that the Holy Spirit will give them as much guidance as He gives the hierarchy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Penfold,

There is much material in your post and I will try to do it justice by dealing with as many points as I can. I think Mairtin is making similiar points and he selected the paragraph that I would have if I confined myself to one.

Firstly I compared my view to Newman's pre the proclamation. Newman accepted the proclamation after it was made.

So where to begin, perhaps here:

Quote:
 
The church is not a democracy


Here and elsewhere this statement is usually produced with a flourish which is intended to end all debate. However, recently I have come to realise that actually that is the problem and, more importantly, it should not be. It should not be the problem because the church should be a democracy. When you read the Acts of the Apostles you see that important decisions were taken collectively. Note in patricular who chose the seven "servants".

Quote:
 
it is a Theocracy.


You mean like the Ayatollas and the Mullas in Iran? I bet you think thats an outrageous comparison, typical of my use of language. But not only is that what comes to mind when you use the word Theocracy but also just how close the comparison is. Years ago I was horrified when reading about that culture. The Ayatolas and mullas had unbridled power over the people and sexual exploitation was rife. They had even invented a theological concept of "temporry marriage" which facilitated the exploitation. Now, when I read this I came to the smug conclusion that this was a proof of sorts of how wrong their religion was and how ours was the only right one. How foolish of me eh? Because a couple of decades down the line we find our clergy are doing and have been doing exactly the same thing. Our celibate clergy.

Quote:
 
as for recent events to do with the sins of a few well I cannot excuse the stupidity of certain bishops any more than I could excuse the parents who failed to act.


Sins of a few - you dont "get it" do you? But dont take that personally, I dont know any clergy who "get it" Save for the prophets like Fr Doyle. Are you familiar with him, his story and books? It is not about the sins of a few but about the culture. I will say that agin because that is the heart of the matter. It is about the culture. Unhealthy, authoritarian (tyrannical), with clericalism rife and a cowed submisive laity. And trying to spread the blame onto the parents is a cheap shot. The parents were as powerless as their children. The parents who did act ended up just as victimised.

A short time ago I decided to stop using the word "authoritarian" because it had become familar, comfortable and had lost its meaning. I now prefer to use the word tyrannical because that gets closer to the meaning. And while you are correct about examples being given from trivial parish issues I would say that just demonstrates the culture. From top to bottom. In my parish we have no parish council. Everything seems to be descided by our (rather good and kind but still dictatorial) PP. At the top the Pope issues HV against all advice. V2 said that diocese should have diocesan councils which had many laity on them. This hasnt happened. These are a few approriate examples. If laity felt actively involved in actually "being church" they might worry less about which job "father" had given them to to during Mass on Sunday.

Gerry
Edited by Gerard, Monday, 20. December 2010, 10:28.
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Gerard
Monday, 20. December 2010, 10:10
Sins of a few - you dont "get it" do you? But dont take that personally, I dont know any clergy who "get it" Save for the prophets like Fr Doyle. Are you familiar with him, his story and books? It is not about the sins of a few but about the culture. I will say that agin because that is the heart of the matter. It is about the culture. Unhealthy, authoritarian (tyrannical), with clericalism rife and a cowed submisive laity. And trying to spread the blame onto the parents is a cheap shot. The parents were as powerless as their children. The parents who did act ended up just as victimised.
Let me get this straight Gerry, the church is the people of God, no argument with that and I shall return to that point later but by your definition the culture is the hierarchy and the laity, and that includes parents, is somehow absolved from any responsibility for the culture. It is about the culture.
As for taking it personally Gerry i don't know of any priest who does not take the issue of child abuse personally, we all carry the mark of shame, even those who were themselves victim. So don't accuse me of making a cheep shot, you seek to avoid any responsibility for the churches involvement in the things you dislike and yet claim the church to be the whole people of God.. Well until the whole people of God learn to accept that the responsibility for that rests with them as well don't complain to me about Clericalism and Authoritarian regimes for this culture of clericalism, particularly in Ireland, came about because the laity placed the clergy on pedestals, I agree some were happy to be up there which was why in the early 80's I choose not to work in Ireland as a priest but choose to work in the more tolerant and liberal England. I shall not go further on the issue of child abuse for it is raised and discussed at length on other threads but confine myself to the remark It is about the culture. in relation to Papal infallibility for it as the people of the church we are the heirs to the culture of which you complain and are parents and forbears had there share in creating it. It will not be changed if people only attack the clergy and fail to accept their own part.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Penfold,

I agree that a majority of the laity collude in the culture of clericalism. However, I blame the clergy for taking all power to themselves and leaving the laity powerless. This happened over centuries and we (all of us) heve inherited it. But how does a powerless laity get its power and authority back? I agree that many laity dont want the power back because they want the clergy to everything for them. But for the laity who want their power, authority and responsibility back how does a powerless laity get it back from an all powerful clergy?

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Just had some related thoughts.

I think when many catholics reach the point where they could write the post I have just written above - they leave the Catholic Church. I have no intention of ever doing so but as my involvement in active Christianity has increased so has my understanding of why such people do leave.

You will be aware of the rise of Pentecostal Christianity throughout the world. It grew exponentially throughout the last century and continues. There are several reasons for this success but one of them is the activation and empowerment of the hoi poloi.

Gerry

"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply