William Oddies's article reminded me of a story I was told about a conversation with a distinguished academic, a supporter of La Beattie. Now, theology wasn't his field but he was certainly a "liberal", his claim was that the Pope could do anything he wanted to do.
If he chose the Pope could merely sign a document saying women could be ordained priest or bishop before breakfast and after breakfast ordain as many as he wished. In the same way he could change the Church's teaching birth control or abortion, or even the matter for the Eucharist: substituting coke and crisps if he so wished. By the same reasoning, taken to its ultimate extreme, he could add or subtract Persons to the doctrine of the Trinity itself.
Orthodox Catholics are often shocked at the hatred the heterodox have for the person of the Pope, both Pope Benedict and his Blessed predecessor. They seem to have the idea that anything they object to is the personal responsibility of the Pope, that he alone is the brake, holding back their own vision of the Church.
This is the terrifying Spirit of Vatican I that really sees the Church as Pope's personal fiefdom and he as its master rather than its servant and makes his fellow bishops his lackeys or at best or at best merely consultors who may be dispensed with at will, rather than co-workers with the Pope and inheritors with him of Apostolic authority.
If you add a bit of cottage Marxism you can then can start speaking, as Ms Beattie does, of an "official" Magisterium and other legitimate Magisterii which are acceptable alternatives or could at some stage take the place of the official one. Then of course the whole Church is seem as a battleground of acceptable opposing ideologies.
14 comments:
Those "academics" have no idea of anything being absolute. Truth is not something which exists of itself. Truth is simply a relative concept and therefore something which is true for you could quite well be untrue for someone else.
They cannot understand the concept that what is, IS; irrespective of either you or me.
The words of Jesus "I am the Way the Truth and the Life" mean nothing to those academic relativists. They are in for one big shock when they face Jesus at the end!
Perhaps someone could explain for me why Ms Beattie- who appears to have gained her qualifications from non-Catholic institutions- is credited as a "Catholic theologian"?
To perhaps clarify what I mean: I am a Catholic but at present have no formal qualifications in Theology. If I were to enrol with a non-Catholic secular institution and gain a degree in Theology, would I then be able to refer to myself as a Catholic Theologian- and apply for posts in Catholic institutions as such?
Perhaps this would explain why so many lunatics appear to be on the loose in the asylum?
Great pic!
I have just come across the Ora Pro Nobis blog, which has a couple of posts about how the opportunity of Vatican II was lost and how the proponents of the 'spirit of Vatican II' missed the point. And how evangelical Protestants have in large part succeeded in achieving what VII could have given to Roman Catholic laity.
I would be interested in your views, Father, should you get a chance to read and/ or respond.
http://catholicgadfly.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/things-liberal-catholics-say-to-try-and.html
http://catholicgadfly.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/the-irony-of-evangelical-and.html
Thank you
What you describe is exactly the road that the Church of England followed. Henry VIII is one illustration and General Synod is another.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/papacy3.htm
The Holy Father and "Papal infallibility: the pope, when pronouncing definitively and dogmatically on matters of faith and morals is protected from teaching errors. This protection comes from the Holy Spirit and was promised by Jesus Christ when He said that He would send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles to teach them all truth. The pope only enjoys this special protection when he is speaking in union with the other bishops (the successors of the Apostles) as the successor to Saint Peter (the leader of the Apostles)."
I'm young enough and old to remember and wonder about what many anti-past Christians evoke with regards to some of the documented words of Blessed John Paul II.
Christian revelation struck me as unique even when I preferred the other-stuff.
the constantly conjured speech/opinion/doctrine? of Blessed John Paul II over the Assisi Interfaith Prayer Scandals and the all gods one god:
Christians and Muslims believe in the same God, the one God along the path marked out by Abraham in his submission to the divine will, we find his descendant, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus, who is also devoutly invoked by Muslims, especially in popular piety.2. We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection” (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497). The patrimony of revealed texts in the Bible speaks unanimously of the oneness of God. Jesus himself reaffirms it, making Israel’s profession his own: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Mk 12:29; cf. Dt 6:4-5). This oneness is also affirmed in the words of praise that spring from the heart of the Apostle Paul: “To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen’”(1 Tm 1:17).We know that in the light of the full Revelation in Christ, this mysterious oneness cannot be reduced to a numerical unity...
is confusing. is it just a speech, opinion or doctrine?
If it is Truth; I tried once upon a time thinking, sure, every god is the same god - but that was a post-reformation-occult-new-age doctrine I learned which goes, 'Every god is one god; the one god must die so the gods may live'.
What is JPII's 'one god'? how can the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have told a bloke 700 years ago in what we now call Saudi Arabia that in fact Jesus isn't divine or a son of god, that the 'blessed virign' is the same Mary sister of Moses who was struck with leprosy for her sins...
Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran - I don't mean to be 'withsatan' as I've been called before for asking this, but what did the Holy Father JPII mean by kissing the Koran?
if the revelation written in the Koran, that Jesus didn't die on the Cross and is not divine-only begottenSon of God...
my question - JPII's any god is THE god - is it
his opinion, understandibly because atheism/communism may have seemed the evil of evils, or is it of the Faith?
wwh,
I occassionally misspeak, I suspect JPII miskissed, not thinking he did what his MC told him to do, without thinking what he was doing.
This is reminding me of that little bugaboo some canon lawyer got up to when he pointed out the canon law doesn't allow for married deacons- or I guess more precisely, those deacons have to give up whatever joys of the marriage bed they have left. This is, of course, according to the law- but luckily for them they don't actually have to obey the law as long as Il Papa (or some Vatican bureacrat presumably acting in his name) says so.
I think bishops should be able to ordain married men, according to the needs of their diocese, so I am merely mentioning this as an example.
What's the point of the example?
That the current practice is untenable. The law is not in conformity with the leaders, and the leaders are not in conformity with the law. It does end up being as if the pope can do anything, the only real check on that power being the gravity of the Vatican bureaucracy. So, as something of a traditionalist, I was always hoping that he would do something to right the ship, but later I realized that, due to the nature of politics, the progressives will win because the situation favors them inherently.
Anarchy Breeds Tradition
Laurence O'Cuinn
Not all comments are published, I was told the story by one of the academics involved.
Your link doesn't work, your accusation of racism is ludicrous and insulting hence "Not all comments are published".
It's a fascinating issue. My experience of the liberal wing of the church in England and Wales is that it's very directional. That is, it aims to take control of the levers of power and use them to have its way in matters of considerable detail. This is evident (to be fair in varying degrees) in those dioceses with lay directors of liturgy, and in the secretive and irregular activities of the national process for permission to publish settings of certain liturgical texts. There's nout so dictatorial than a liberal Catholic.
Another dodgy academic is John Cornwall. His book 'Breaking Faith' is a model of heresy. Naturally of course he has the Tablet connection.
"The pope is infallible when he solemnly proclaims a teaching about faith and morals. Do you understand what that means?"
"Oh yes Father," Rex replies.
"Ok, let's suppose the pope said that he thinks it's going to rain tomorrow. Does that means it is definitely going to rain tomorrow?"
"Oh yes Father."
"But supposing it doesn't rain tomorrow? What does that mean?"
Rex thought for a second and said, "Well, I suppose it would be raining spiritually, only the rest of us are too sinful to see it."
Isn't the rejection of "pnumatic anarchy" patristic?
The pope is only infallible in certain occasions and there are teachings, such as the Trinity, that he cannot change. For someone to suggest that the pope is never wrong about anything or that he can change essential doctrines is not Catholic. It is actually, as you stated, a reaffirmation of the negative stereotypes people have about us.
Post a Comment