Authority of the Churchgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
In the spirit of love and understanding, I have a question:If you believe in the authority of the Church, why would someone dismiss the validity of Vatican II?
Comparison: A Brazilian Bishop, Carlos Duarte Costa, left the Church or was excommunicated and founded the Brazilian Apostolic Church. The Charismatic Episcopal Church founded in 1977 traces their apostolic succession through him.
If people reject VII, would the acceptance of the Charismatic Episcopal Church be any different than the acceptance of the pre-Vatican II churches?
I'm really trying to understand, but maybe I'M missing the point... God Bless, John
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), January 17, 2003
People, throughout history, do NOT like change..change in anything is viewed as "bad"..people get very comfortable with things being predictable and therefore safe..when these things are altered, they rebel and want the security of the way things always were...The second Vatican Council did a bunch of things...it brought about change..yet unfortunately, the change was at FIRST very chaotic, very misunderstood, and full of blatant misinformation..it frightened a ton of people who then didn't stick around long enough to hear what was truth and what was false. I think satan was thrilled with the results...To have lived those initial days, depending upon WHERE you were, you didn't know which end was up or whom to believe..it was truly as if the entire church had dissolved right before your very eyes. THAT isn't an exaggeration. The strength of the church has been revealed in Pope John Paul..he has done so much to clarify issues and reunite people..God love him! The difference? IMHO, it was NOT Vatican II at all, but the manner in which some American bishops erred in their communications of the changes that caused a problem.Add that to a weak faith on the part of those of us who overreacted, and voila..to have laity go a little nuts is one thing..to have clergy LEAD laity astray is quite another.
-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 17, 2003.
Go to www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/62reason.htmlHere is the results of the confusion.
-- fisherman (soxie@37.com), January 19, 2003.
Incidentally, I believe that Catholics at the time of the proclamation of the Rite of Pious V (the 'old rite') protested in a similar manner as they do today - they called the rite "rationalist" and "pagan" and whatnot. Every liturgical adaption will be followed by a band of nostalgic naysayers. That's just the nature of things.
-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), January 19, 2003.
Change, is not always change for the better. The test of time will tell a lot about, whether change was correct or not.
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 19, 2003.
fisherman..I went to that site and looked it over..quite interesting..have you made note of the DATES on that material?? Mostly from 1969..many of the issues brought up from 1969 have been cleared up since then, especially since Pope John Paul II has made it very clear that the "old mass" can be said and attended by those prefer it. Had certain clergy who took VOWS of obedience honored them years ago, lay persons would not have been led into blatant error.A vow of obedience is just that..you are obedient to the church...if some clergy can't understand what that means anymore, they ought to simply ask to be released from their vows and move along.It's been done before..the Catholic Church survived then and will survive now.
-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 19, 2003.
Lesley, I too have seen that site. I will, at least to some degree, agree with it. You sat, that it was related to 1969. I have done some looking, and I find, that the old Mass was not available fro 1970, to 1984, 14 years, no choice of old Mass. It seems more than coincidence, that when Marcel Lefebvre, started to make waves, that then, and only then, did the pope give blessings to latin mass societies. I do not believe for one minute, that if Lefebvre, did not offer resistance, you would see a traditional Mass around these days.No thanks to anyone but Lefebvre, that we are grudgingly offered this Mass, by a handful of bishops, why make sure that the time, and place, are particularly inconvenient.
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 19, 2003.
Ed, my point was and is that IF priests who take vows of obedience to the church cannot honor them, why be priests at all? 14 or 15 years, even 30 years of being obedient..so what? If a Traditional Mass means so much to you, or anyone else, then move to where one is offered which is permitted/welcomed by the bishop in that area..We are willing to drive nearly 2 hours to attend such a mass once a month..we'd go more often if I weren't so disabled. On the other hand, if there were a priest down the street saying a mass in Latin that was NOT sanctioned by the church, I wouldn't be there under any circumstances because I would be contributing to his error, the error of those others in attendance, and my own..heavy, weighty "stuff".
-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 19, 2003.
Lesley, thanks for your insignt. I am sorry to hear about your difficulty, and the 2 hour trip. You must indeed love the traditional Mass, to go to that inconvenience. My trip would be even more than 2 hours to go to an approved mass. As it is, I must travel 45 minutes to attend an "unaproved" Mass. I am a 5 minute walk from a Novus Ordo Mass, that I would never attend, except for family reasons. Even then I just sit quietly, and do not participate.You spoke of priestly obedience, well what about bishops disobedience?. Where is that "generous application", that the pope asked from the bishops?. The fact that you have to travel 2 hours, answers that question. God bless you Lesley.
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 19, 2003.
I've already spoken to the people in my own parish about this..they don't have a desire for the Latin Mass..here in our area, there are extremely few Catholics to begin with (North Central Alabama)..our priest actually divides his time serving two small churches miles apart. The next significant group of Catholics is nearly two hours away...that's where the Latin Mass is, as well as the "New Mass"..the priest who had given me incorrect information about the Latin mass that I referred to in an earlier post was a visitor, helping out over the holidays last year when everyone had vistors from out of state.
-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 20, 2003.
The New Mass is not a profession of Catholic faith; it is ambiguous and Protestant because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making it up.(Georges, Jasper, Shephard, Konneth, Smith and Thurian).We pray as we believe and it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant fashion and still believe as Catholics. The changes were not slight but "deal with a fundamental renovation ... a total change ... a new creation" (Msgr.Bugnini, coauthor of the New Mass). The difference between the New Mass and the Catholic one is detail or ceremonial. All that is of Catholic value finds at best a minor place in the New Mass. Let's be guided by the words of Our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." New Mass Fruits are Protestant minister Thurian's saying that a fruit of the New Mass "will perhaps be that non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord's Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church." 30% decrease in Sunday Mass in the U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76). 8. Because in less than seven years after the introduction of the new Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 -- almost a 50% decrease (Holy See Statistics). What more?
-- Dr Russell J Berry (rjb@directadvocacy.law), January 20, 2003.
The purpose of the Mass is to surround and support the quintessential act of Christian worship, the Eucharist, the only act of worship directly commanded by God, without which there is no Mass. The Eucharist we receive today, at ANY Mass, is precisely that which the Apostles received at the Last Supper - the fullness of Jesus Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity. One who accepts this truth has no grounds for criticizing the form of Mass approved by God's Church. One who doesn't accept it has no grounds for claiming to be Catholic.Who precisely is this anonymous "we" who find it impossible to worship in the Mass approved by the Church and to also accept the doctrines approved by that same Church? Hundreds of millions of Catholics, myself included, find that "we" can. I can sympathize with a small minority whose tainted views compromise their personal ability to worship in Spirit and in truth. But it is really quite meaningless for such individuals to attempt to project their views onto the Church as a whole, a Church which as a whole has already discovered experientially that such views are without substance or merit. To most Catholics, praying in an antiquated foreign tongue while men in lace surplices run around bowing to everything in sight does not constitute "all that is Catholic". To most Catholics, the Most Holy Eucharist, not trappings from days gone by, is the essence of "all that is Catholic".
continued ........
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 20, 2003.
Though the precipitous decline in Mass attendance and religious vocations which necessitated Vatican II has not yet been fully reversed, the tide is turning. American orthodox orders are receiving more applicants than they can handle, while vocations in other countries are at an all-time high, generating such an abundance of priests that many are already being sent as missionaries to our own spiritually impoverished nation. The Holy Spirit provides for God's Church. He has done a superb job for the past 2,000 years, in spite of the innumerable obstacles set up by men, and He shows no sign of surrendering His Church now to the powers of the age. It is only in refusal to submit to the authority of that same Church that we run the risk of being left behind as the Church continues undaunted in its divine mission to guide all men to salvation.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 20, 2003.
"men running around in lace surplices bowing to everything..." "ancient language..."..ouch Paul..actually, those trappings mean a great deal to some of us old fuddie duddies, yet I agree 100% with the meaning behind your statement. I am reminded of the times of great persecution in the church when people huddled in cellars in fear to hear the mass..there were no "trappings" then..no time for them, and the danger was too great..the EUCHARIST was what was of import then, as it is now. To those folks such as Ed who would deny the church itself over "form"..well, I've been there and done that myself...pity. One simply cannot see the forest for the trees.
-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 21, 2003.
Dear lesley,I'm glad you grasped my deeper meaning. Lest my choice of words be interpreted by some as a lack of respect for things sacred, let me assure you that I too am a member of the old fuddie duddie club, and I have done more than my share of surplice-wearing and bowing, and "ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam ". And yes, in the 1,000+ Latin masses where I served on the altar, I found these aspects profoundly meaningful. I would not want to create any impression to the contrary. My point is that these things were meaningful, indeed sacred, precisely BECAUSE they were part of the Mass. Wearing a surplice and bowing to people would be meaningless, silly even, in a different setting; and Latin as spoken in Latin class did not create the same sense of reverence as Latin spoken in the context of the Mass. Traditionalists today reverse this reality, claiming that the Mass was sacred BECAUSE of these externals, and that changing the externals therefore robs the Mass of its sense of the sacred. Those who are bogged down in this perverted view of Catholic worship need to get their priorities in order. As long as the Eucharist is present in the Mass, the Mass is not only "valid", it is GLORIOUS! A Mass celebrated on the hood of a jeep in the jungle by a chaplain in muddy combat fatigues is the SAME Mass as one celebrated by the Pope in St. Peter's, with a hundred bishops in gold vestments concelebrating - for there is NO other. This is THE Mass. There are not different "KINDS of Masses". There is only THE MASS, wherein Jesus Christ becomes actually prsent to those gathered in His Holy Name. Anyone who walks away from The Mass over a change in the external particulars never knew what The Mass was in the first place.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 21, 2003.
Lesley and Paul. I don't question the mass as it is said today, even with clowns and superman priests. Even a devout new mass. but is this offering our best to the Lord. Mew cathedrals, or round theater like churches. I get the idea that we are pleasing ourselves not,God. Those old European churches reflected the minds os saints and martyrs. When Luther broke away he said," I am glad to be rid of thaat altar, and that abominable Sacrifice." He put in a table, does that sound familiar?
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 21, 2003.
Dear Ed,An altar is in fact a table. What makes it an altar is what is done upon it, not its physical structure. The first Mass was not celebrated on a thirty ton marble edifice. It was celebrated on an ordinary dinner table - which at that moment was indeed an altar. The design of altars, like the other externals of the Mass, gradually evolved over the centuries, eventually coming to resemble tombs, even to the point of containing relics of the saints - and not without intent. Such a design commemorated the early Masses which were celebrated in the catacombs, on the tombs of the martyrs. Which is all very valid and meaningful and indeed inspiring. But it doesn't change the basic fact that an altar is the place where a sacricifice is offered, regardless of its dimensions, or what it is made of.
Peace! Paul
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 21, 2003.
Paul, I want to say this without seeming snide, because written words can sometimes convey diferent meanings. but it seems that since they so drastically changed the form of the mass, they seem to be trying to go back to the originalnumber of people in the catacombs. No matter how they offer it, there are fewer and fewer takers. When the apostles sat at that first mass, (last supper), they faced their Lord, they did not turn their backs to Him, to pay more attention to tje folks behind Him. All eyes were on Him. Today priest faces people (presider), people face Him, and the tabernacle which is always in front of priest and people, is a thing of the past.
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 21, 2003.
Paul, Thank you for soldiering my views.A latin mass can be spiritually fulfilling to a person. But, in my opinion, so can a "healing mass" at a RC Charismatic center. Both are approved masses.
For me, both can be equally nice.
And by the way, as "liberal" as I am on worship, I took 3 years of Latin in order to help understand our Catholic heritage. I have forgotten more than I remember but...
God Bless, John
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), January 21, 2003.
Dear Ed,The purpose of the tabernacle is to contain the Body of Christ when the Mass is NOT being celebrated. At Mass, there are two representations of Christ, one symbolic, the other actual. The symbolic representation is the "alter Christi", the priest, who stands in the place of Christ, and who now faces the people just as Jesus did at the Last Supper, rather than turning his back on them as in the Latin Mass. The other representation of Christ is the actual re-presentation of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist - which is now continuously visible to the people, just as at the Last Supper, instead of being largely hidden behind the priest, as in the Latin Mass. Both Masses of course include the elevation, where the Sacred Species are presented to the people. However, the current form of Mass is much more like the original Mass, in many respects, than the Tridentine form is. Which demonstrates that those who clamor most loudly for "traditional form" are really just drawn to the most recent in a series of forms that the Mass has taken -the one they grew up with. They are not interested in "the original", only in what they are personally accustomed to.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 21, 2003.
Paul, something that bothers me no end, and I do not believe that I have ever mentioned it, out of regard for the sincere people on this web, Is the fact of who originated the form of this new mass. You probably know that Msgr. Annibale Bugnine, (a documented Mason and communist), Was the "father", of the Novus Ordo. I read, that sometime later, he was banished by Paul VI. I am not doubting the validity, but I cannot take part in the irreverance, that invariably props up. That's why I ascribe to "The way we pray, is the way we believe" or I think it goes , Lex Orandi, Lex Credenti, (or something like that)
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 21, 2003.
Ed, just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. It's been rumored but no one has offered any proof to back it up. We're not supposed to spread rumors as fact. :-)
-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 21, 2003.
http://w ww.ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/jun1989p17_640.html Christine check this article, if you care to. I'm sure you can find plenty on your own, also if you care to. God baless you, Ed
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 21, 2003.
Dear Ed,If lex orandi = lex credendi (the law of prayer = the law of belief), and if our believe is what the Word of God plainly states - that the Church Jesus founded is the Pillar and Foundation of truth, and that whatsoever it binds on earth is bound in heaven - then there is no option but to conform our personal law of prayer to the dictates of that belief, which means subjecting our personal preferences to the law of prayer of the Body of Christ, the Church.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 21, 2003.
The current Mass has been officially approved by Holy Mother Church. Agreed?Simply not liking the new Mass seems to me very different than arguing against the validity of it. But *preferring* the Latin Rite enough to forego our Sunday obligation is serious matter. (Note: I speak here NOT of someone who chooses to go to a Latin Mass approved by the local bishop.)
With regard to the Mass, the Church speaks with authority... and She's spoken clearly on the new Mass. This issue is one that clearly falls under the "disciplines" category (practices that CAN be changed) rather than the "dogmas" category (truths that CANNOT be changed). So long as the Church has approved the new discipline, it's acceptable - whether I happen to like it or not.
The question of who "fathered" the discipline is, thankfully, not a matter of concern to me. Regardless of who originated the discpline, it's the Church - vouchsafed by Christ's own promise - who approves it. And I deem the Church trustworthy. I'm sure trusting our Church can be incredibly difficult when we don't like the results we see Sunday after Sunday. But I'm confident the answer is not to leave an approved Mass (new or Latin) for an unapproved one. Seems to me that's a step toward disregarding ever-larger binding, authoritative Church decisions - such as questioning the validity of Vatican II (which is the question that started this thread). A dangerous forest to wander into, seems to me.
-Greg
-- Greg Adas (gadas@familink.com), January 21, 2003.
Dear Everyone!john placette - "If you believe in the authority of the Church, why would someone dismiss the validity of Vatican II?"
lesley - "The second Vatican Council did a bunch of things...it brought about change.."
Ed Richards - "Change, is not always change for the better. The test of time will tell a lot about, whether change was correct or not."
Dr Russell J Berry - "The New Mass is not a profession of Catholic faith; it is ambiguous and Protestant because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making it up.(Georges, Jasper, Shephard, Konneth, Smith and Thurian).We pray as we believe and it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant fashion and still believe as Catholics. The changes were not slight but "deal with a fundamental renovation ... a total change ... a new creation" (Msgr.Bugnini, coauthor of the New Mass)."
Paul - "The Eucharist we receive today, at ANY Mass, is precisely that which the Apostles received at the Last Supper - the fullness of Jesus Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity. One who accepts this truth has no grounds for criticizing the form of Mass approved by God's Church. One who doesn't accept it has no grounds for claiming to be Catholic."
continue...
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 21, 2003.
Dear Everyone!I just wanted to post some quotes from variouse posters here. I would like to start my questions with another quote from Paul, if I may:
"The Holy Spirit provides for God's Church. He has done a superb job for the past 2,000 years, in spite of the innumerable obstacles set up by men, and He shows no sign of surrendering His Church now to the powers of the age."
I have been told here [many times at this forum] that the Holy Spirit has kept the Roman Catholic Church on the straight and narrow for 2,000 years. That the Catholic Church is infallible in its teachings and that the Pope is infallible in his teachings.
If that is so, then please someone answer the following questions:
--
Why have doctrines come up throughout the years, and not just at the beginning?
593 - Belief in purgatory
600 - Prayer to Mary and the saints
709 - The practice of kissing the pope's foot
995 - The canonization of dead saints
1079 - Celibacy of the priesthood
1090 - Praying the rosary
1215 - Transubstantiation and confessing sins to a priest
1439 - Belief in the seven sacraments
--
Irenaeus's list of the 12 bishops of Rome did not include Peter's name.
continue...
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 21, 2003.
Dear Everyone!Galileo, using a telescope, posited the theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system.
Galileo was promptly summoned by an Inquisition in 1632, was tried, and was pronounced "vehemently suspected of heresy". From that point forward, he was forced to repeat the seven penitential psalms once a week for three years, and was held under house arrest until his death in 1642.
--
The Great Schism between 1378 and 1417 reveals that there were times of more than one pope.
--
Pope Honorius I (625-638) was condemned by the Sixth General Council for teaching the monothelite heresy. [the teaching that there was only one will in Christ]
How did the infallible Pope teach error?
-----
I am not really looking for answers to these questions. I would just like an answer to why I am looked at as a heretic because I trust the Holy Scripture to be infallible and inerrant, and that the Holy Spirit works in the heart and mind of people - and not the Catholic Church as the infallible, inerrant teacher. Yet, history has proven that the Catholic Church is neither infallible nor inerrant. So, where do Roman Catholics get the priviledge of this claim?
-----
Please don't reply out of anger. I just don't understand how a Roman Catholic can honestly say that the Roman Catholic Church has been infallible and inerrant for 2,000 years.
God Bless!
-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 21, 2003.
Christine. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a freemason initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23rd, 1963 (Masonic Register of Italy dated 1976). Monsignor Buganini was removed from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason. And instead of being publicly reproved, or required to renounce his Masonic membership, he was appointed Papal Nuncio to Iran. The president of the Concilium was Cardinal Lecaro, a man whom Cardinal Bacci called, " Luthe resurrected".
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 21, 2003.
Post #1:Tim writes:
"Please don't reply out of anger. I just don't understand how a Roman Catholic can honestly say that the Roman Catholic Church has been infallible and inerrant for 2,000 years."
The Church teaches infallibly in areas of faith and morals. Faith and morals...
Here's some reading regarding Galileo.
You might be interested to know that Galileo's tomb is in a Catholic Church! To be exact, he's in the Santa Croce (Church of the Holy Cross) in Florence. He's not alone: Dante Alighieri, Michelangelo, Machiavelli.
Here's more reading from the Catholic Encyclopaedia (New Advent).
NewAdvent.org has some info regarding both Pope Honorius I and the Monothelites. This is new to me, so we'll both have to study this one.
Tim writes:
"The Great Schism between 1378 and 1417 reveals that there were times of more than one pope."
Well, Tim, there were certainly anti-Popes then. Believe it or not, there are anti-Popes even today. Don't believe me? Here's one. Does that shake my faith in the legitimacy of Pope John Paul II? Nope, I can't say it does.
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 21, 2003.
Post #2:Tim writes:
"I am not really looking for answers to these questions."
Umm...OK.
"I would just like an answer to why I am looked at as a heretic because I trust the Holy Scripture to be infallible and inerrant, and that the Holy Spirit works in the heart and mind of people"
Well, you somehow believe that the whole "Holy Spirit guidance thing" just stopped after the apostles died. But, totally contradicting that, you also believed that King James somehow capable of inerrantly translating the Bible with the help of a bunch of protestants theologians (who probably disagree with much of your theology). An inerrant translation could only happen under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don't think I see your position as heretical as much as I see it as untenable. You want your point of view to make sense...it just doesn't.
In Christ,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 21, 2003.
I wrote:"He's not alone: Dante Alighieri, Michelangelo, Machiavelli. "
Well, they're all buried in the same church...
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 21, 2003.
Tim, the fact that you aren't looking for real answers to your questions truly makes one wonder why you took the trouble to post them! I believe you when you say you aren't interested in the answers. I will repond to your posting of my stating that Vatican II involved "change" though..perhaps because you are ignorant of the Church, you misunderstand the entire conversation we have been having on this post, and are somehow thinking, "AHA", they are admitting their church "CHANGES"..no Tim. The changes we have been discussing are in "form", not doctrine. Suppose the Southern Baptist Convention decided that pulpits were no longer necessary, choirs were no longer to be robed, and all of the church benches were to be put in a circle..the pastor would sit on a cushion in the middle of the room and give his sermon..that is "form"..the teachings of the Southern Baptist Church would be the same, yet there'd be a bunch of old folks who would have heart attacks when they went to Sunday services, eh? That is about as close as I can get to what we are discussing here Tim that you would understand.
-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 22, 2003.
On second thought Tim, I came up with a better analogy..suppose the Southern Baptist Convention decided to have their hymns sung in Latin, and required their pastors to use incense, and then named the folks who passed out the collection plates "altar boys", and further decided to have the preacher turn and face away from the congregation during the service? BUT the doctrine would stay the same. Now THAT's more like what we have been discussing here. Folks would go nuts over those changes, accusing the conference leaders of turning the Baptist church into something which "looked" Catholic.They'd vow never to attend such a service perhaps..pastors would defy the conference and continue to have things the way they always were..perhaps..OR, they'd go off and start their own church..EVEN THOUGH THE DOCTRINE HADN'T CHANGED...yup, that's a better analogy. So Tim, our Catholic discussion of the mass, and the changes have nothing to do with doctrine, just "trappings",although Ed and others may disagree..as many Baptists would if the above actually happened.
-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 22, 2003.
Part 1:Hi Tim,
Here's a bit of reading for you and everyone else.
Tim quotes the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
"His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)."
OK, Tim. When I gave you the link, I had hoped that you would read more than just a few lines. You may want to read the entire pages, as they will educate you on the details of Pope Honorius and the world in which he lived. Today, Protestants are interested in this pope, as evidenced by your citing him. The same page I gave you a link to states:
"Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists."
It's only natural that the entry begins by stating (for those like me who didn't know) what his claim to fame is--thanks in no small measure to his Protestant fans.
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 24, 2003.
Part 2:You write:
"How can an infallible Pope be condemned as a heretic?"
Well, let's step back a bit: why was he condemned as a heretic? He was condemned as a heretic because he responded to a letter from Sergius (the Patriarch of Constantinople) in which he didn't specifically condemn a particular phrasing of words that were associated with Monothelism. The pope's correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople is characterized as follows:
"[P]assages in the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that the pope simply followed Sergius, without going more deeply into the question. The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance."
Often people confuse what Papal Infallibility is. Let's begin with this--Papal Infallibility does not mean that the pope is sinless or impeccable. Even the first pope, St. Peter, denied Jesus three times. St. Peter was not expressing Church doctrine when he denied Jesus. St. Peter even tried to dissuade Jesus from fulfilling His mission (Mark 8:33). Jesus called St. Peter "Satan." We can agree that Jesus' words are infallible, right? Well, we still have St. Peter's letters in the Bible. St. Peter was personally fallible, even if he (as Pope) taught infallibly. Make sense? It should, it's all in the Bible. The Catholic Church included this man's letters in the Canon of the New Testament, affirming that his letters are the Inspired Word of God.
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 24, 2003.
Part 3:In my opinion, St. Peter's denials are much more serious than this letter discussing the nature ("one operation" vs. "two operations") of Our Lord. I'm curious, Tim: what's your position regarding the theology held by the Monothelites? Do you agree with the Catholic view or the Monothelite view? Also, where in the Bible would you support your opinion?
What are the fundamentals of Pope Honorius' situation?
1) He did not speak Ex Cathedra. In this letter to Sergius, he was not defining or condemning any doctrine. He wasn't condemned for making a statement--he was condemned for negligence--that is, he didn't make a doctrinal statement when he should have.
2) As Pope Honorius' situation relates to the integrity of the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church, I'd like you to reflect on the actions of the Pope Saint Agatho and his council. Quoting from the NewAdvent.org text:
It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.
3) To be sure, we should all at least agree that Pope Honorius was not accused of being a Monothelite.
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 24, 2003.
Part 4:Quoting from EWTN.com on Papal Infallibility:
"
The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite controversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the decrees of which were approved by Leo II. But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bitterness of the controversy by securing silence. In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter's misrepresentation of his opponents' position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills.
....
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 24, 2003.
[Part 5]:Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius's letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal. The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings."
I'd be interested to find out how much you knew about Pope Honorius before going to the NewAdvent.org websites. I have a feeling that you might be "learning" like a subscriber to a gossip magazine "learns" about famous people. As a consumer, you support the efforts of people who spend their lives looking up dirt on people whom they (and you) don't like.
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 24, 2003.
Part 6:If you truly are interested in Papal history (maybe I'm judging you too soon), here's some book recommendations:
Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid (There's a chapter on Pope Honorius, of course)
If you'd like to learn about the great Christian Doctors instead of focusing on the negative, I'd recommend 33 DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH.
Here's some online reading from Catholic.com on the Church and the Papacy.
In Christ,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 24, 2003.
Part 7:Tim writes:
"I believe the Holy Spirit works in the lives of every Believer, not just a select few individuals of a church organization whether Catholic or Prodestant."
Tim, the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit works through every believer, giving us different gifts (charisms). This does not mean that each believer has infallible authority. That authority rests with the Church.
Matthew 16:18,19 - "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus keeps this promise. Protestants embrace a position that Jesus did not keep His promise. I always scratch my head on verses like these; because it's always here where I can't find a a literalist Protestant to save my life--it's like they don't exist! :-)
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 24, 2003.
Part 8:Tim asks:
"What Bible[s] does the Catholic Church claim as inerrant?"
Here's the answer at EWTN.com.
Here's the answer at Catholic.com.
First, at Mass, we use the New American Bible. The following English versions of the Bible are approved for devotional reading:
1) Douai-Rheims
2) Confraternity Edition.
3) Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition
4) New American Bible (There's a few versions of the NAB)
5) Jerusalem Bible (1966)
6) New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989)
7) New Jerusalem Bible (1990).
8) Today's' English Version - Catholic (1992).
The English language is a moving target. Words' meanings change. For example, the King James Version of the Bible contains the following:
James 2:3 - "And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool"
As I said, words' meanings change. Do you have respect for men who wear gay clothing? Hmmm...
Well, anyway, we Catholics have got a lot of approved versions of the Bible.
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 24, 2003.
Tim, Thanks for teaching me something new about my Faith. I didn't know that it was a "doctrine" to "kiss the pope's foot," although I've seen the pope get down and kiss the ground when visiting a country for the first time. God is timeless and ageless for sure, Tim, but we humans are not...As we come to understand things about our Faith, we make written proclamations. These proclamations have been made over the centuries, so what? Just because they weren't all proclaimed at once at the Last Supper, we should disregard them? And, I'm sorry, but many Protestants I know claim that Jesus tells them things...Just today my daughter was telling me of a Protestant acquaintenance who claimed the Lord told her what software to buy! But God does not reveal anything or render new understandings over a period of 2000 years to the Church He founded? You said you were asking these questions, but really didn't want an answer. Isn't that a little like Pontius Pilate asking Christ, "What is Truth?" Scripture says he then turned and walked away. He really didn't want to know. He just wanted to mock Christ. Christ founded this Church, as has been pointed out to you. I am truly sorry that you have difficulty accepting that. How do you feel about John 6:51- 60? Do you take these passages literally? When you're ready to face (and embrace) the Truth, we'll be happy to give you a helping hand onto the Rock! Viva Christo Rey.
-- Anna <>< (FloweroftheHour@hotmail.com), January 24, 2003.