| 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: |
| Papal Infallibility; and Infallibility of the Church | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Monday, 21. January 2008, 23:07 (2,406 Views) | |
| OsullivanB | Tuesday, 21. December 2010, 21:56 Post #121 |
|
In "Light of the World" there is a short discussion of the meaning of the word "Church", as distinct from "ecclesial community" a term employed by the Second Vatican Council. It closed with this exchange (p.96): Seewald (interviewer): "And not even a Pope can offer an alternative definition of a Church:" Pope Benedict: "No. He has no authority over that. The Second Vatican Council is binding on him." That seems to me to be rather a strong statement in support of collegiality. (Going momentarily off-topic, it's a five-star read!) |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 21. December 2010, 22:00 Post #122 |
|
Yes, Councils are of higher authority than the Pope. Thats my understanding. |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Tuesday, 21. December 2010, 23:04 Post #123 |
![]()
|
It is clear from this that while the Pope may act unhindered the college and councils may only act with his consent and by his authority. I think that suggests that The Pope is the Boss and the councils answer to him and not the other way around. It should be noted however that as I mentioned in relation to JP II and the ordination of Women he Choose to respect the integrity of the Tradition of the Church and the consistent rulings of Councils. He is not bound by them but any Pope would have to be very sure of his private revelation before choosing to act independently. The point of Papal Infallibility is not that the Pope sits on the top of the heap and gives orders on the contrary it ensures that the church remains the Body of Christ and not the Temple of Man. There is little point speaking of empowering the Laity or democratic processes if one does not recognise that in the area of the churches teaching on Faith and Morals we are bound by an authority that can not and more importantly should not be usurped by the will of Man. I use the word man deliberately because if I were not bound in obedience to the church I might wish to take action to empower women and allow them to be part of the clergy but I am not free and must accept in obedience the same ruling as restrained Pope JP II from adopting a more liberal stance. I am only speculating that J P II would have wished it any other way but it serves as an illustration of the point that personal feelings, emotions and desires should not be allowed to transcend the integrity of Church teaching on Faith and Morals. I would love to be able to tell folk they don't have to go to Mass this Sunday but that is not my call but I could make the timings more convenient for those wishing to recover from the previous days festivities. |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 10:57 Post #124 |
|
And the fact the first Council of the Church, Jerusalem, overruled Jesus' chosen first pope, Peter, just might suggest otherwise: 'Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely'. The Church wasn't always run the way it is now - indeed, for many years the pope himself was chosen by the Rome mob, not the prelates. It's far too easy to say that because we have done something 'this way' for centuries, it must always be done 'this way'. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to go back to the early days of the Church, and strip away the 'power lust' that has reigned supreme in the Church and its prelates for centuries? Time, perhaps, to get back to what Jesus/God had to say, rather than the embellishments humans wish He'd said! |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 12:18 Post #125 |
|
Anne-Marie, I agree with most of what you say there. However, as you and I have discussed before, I dont think we can say the the first Council overuled Peter. He himself had baptised uncircumsised gentiles as he said in that Council. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 12:25 Post #126 |
|
Penfold, Pleased to see you are sticking with it. I obviously agree that Peters successor has a special authority. Its the word and concept of infallibility I have a problem with. Its illogical: If the pope is infallible and he says he is infallible then he is infallible. If the pope is not infallible and he says he is infallible then he is not infallible. Which leaves open, I think, the way for any future pope to say that the claim to infallibility was a mistake. I also have a problem with the shenanigans and arm twisting that went on to get the declaration declared. As I pointed out at the start of this thread. "Boss" is a very very very interesting word. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 12:48 Post #127 |
|
What a dreadfully gratuitous insult to those many good people who, in response to a request from their priest, have put their personal feelings of inadequacy aside and agreed to take part in various ministries AS LAID DOWN BY THE CHURCH. I just hope, Penfold, that you never end up like our priest, recovering from cancer and other illnesses, elderly and wanting to retire but unable to do so as there is nobody to replace him; then you too might be very glad to have some of your parishioners "cluttering" the sanctuary to try to help you. |
![]() |
|
| Ned | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 15:01 Post #128 |
|
Circumstances alter cases, Mairtin. Things have to be done properly. There must be many parishes an elderly and infirm priest is being given huge support by a large lay-led group of parishioners. I know of one such parish myself. But sadly there are some other parishes where a small clique of parishioners have taken charge, want to see everything done their way, and see the solitary priest and other parishioners as threats to their authority. Have a read through Saint Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus. |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 15:13 Post #129 |
|
Though I dont do it myself, I think Readers and EMs are just great . In particular I could not routinely receive under both kinds, as The Lord instucted, without EMs to serve (NB) our large congregation.Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 15:34 Post #130 |
|
That may be, Ned, though I haven't seen it myself. but that's not what Penfold was referring to, he specifically referred to EMHCs and Readers whom he seems to regard as generally being imbued with some sort of desire to "get closer to the altar". In my lifetime as an EMHC and Reader, I have never met a single person in either of those ministries who came across as being so motivated; in regard to EMHCs in particular, the vast majority of them, including myself, had to be cajoled into it by the priest and continue to express doubts about their personal worthiness to perform the ministry. |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 15:37 Post #131 |
|
"It should be noted however that as I mentioned in relation to JP II and the ordination of Women he Choose to respect the integrity of the Tradition of the Church and the consistent rulings of Councils. He is not bound by them but any Pope would have to be very sure of his private revelation before choosing to act independently." Just one small observation here Penfold2. [And I do not want to distract by entering into ordinination of women!]. There are certain matters which the Pope cannot do, however many private revelations he has said to have had. He cannot for example alter the Sacramental order, which is effected directly (supernaturally) by Almighty God Himself; in just the same way as a Pope could not for example alter any definition of the Divinity by saying that Christ's Divinity was less than the Father's or the Holy Spirit's. In just the same manner Sacramental marriage is not effected between male and male or female and female, and if the Pope conducted such is Sacrament would just not take place. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 16:52 Post #132 |
![]()
|
I am sorry you read it this way Mairtin but while I have a great respect for the genuine volunteer I would rather see them Volunteer for those roles which the laity were once renowned for providing through the services of organisations such as those I mentioned than press onto the sanctuary. I think I should also point out that their reason for volunteering should not be to help me/the priest but to help the Parish/church. Part of the problem with the church is to many people seeking to "Please the Priest" and that is the context in which my remarks were made, I am sorry for any offence caused by them. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 16:57 Post #133 |
![]()
|
Agreed |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 17:06 Post #134 |
![]()
|
I would agree with you in this Mr Spock but unfortunately logic and faith and logic have a strange alliance. I do not defend the word but the concept that through the successor the church has a guarantor that no matter what man may do the teaching of Christ and the Will of God will prevail. To ensure this there is no authority on earth higher than the Pope in matters of faith and Morals. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 18:10 Post #135 |
|
In other words, you don't really have much time for all this newfangled nonsense and would rather we were back in the days when the laity knew their place ... and stayed in it.
I imagine that the people of the parish regard it as a great help for the distribution of Holy Communion to take less than 10 minutes rather than half an hour. I also imagine that the housebound who are able to receive Holy Communion weekly consider the EMHCs to be great help to them. Actually, I don't need to imagine it, a number of them have told me and other EMHCs just how much it does mean to them. Oh, by the way, many of the EMHCs that I know are already members of organisations such as SVP or the Legion of Mary. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |







. In particular I could not routinely receive under both kinds, as The Lord instucted, without EMs to serve (NB) our large congregation.
8:36 PM Jul 11