|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Titanic struggle for the soul of the Catholic church
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Some of that may indeed be true, HB, but none of it comes from the text. And indeed, in the text Jesus says specifically "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder"--which doesn't seem to leave any wiggle room, much less a warrant to make exceptions for any reason except "fornication." And of course, exegetes are all over the place regarding what he meant by that.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Fr Weber: And "pharasaical" is a two-edged sword; if it falls upon those who insist on sticking to rules, then it falls equally upon those who try to argue those rules into irrelevance.
Do we have a Biblical example of the Pharisees 'arguing rules into irrelevance'?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Why a biblical example, other than that you knew that would be difficult? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Fr Weber: Why a biblical example, other than that you knew that would be difficult?
Well, we have plenty of Biblical examples of the Pharisees sticking to the rules. When you claim that this is a double-edged sword and that the Pharisees can also be used as an example against 'arguing rules into irrelevance', I wonder what you base this claim on.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
I can't think of anything in the Bible offhand, except that in the passage where the tithing of mint & cumin (herbs of which no one grew more than trifling amounts) is mentioned, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of neglecting the important duties of mercy and justice.
The rabbinical tradition, which is where pharisaism ended up, is full of the kind of excusing I mentioned. One example : as of the 16th century, the ban on usury is neatly sidestepped by considering commercial investments to be deposits rather than loans.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't see how one can be a Catholic and argue that the Pope has got something wrong.
If a pope unwisely attempts to bind and loosen the faithful on matters not of received Christian faith and morals, then it is perfectly licit to ignore or even oppose him. If a pope illicitly tries to reverse a dogma of Christian faith and morals that has been established previously, then it is a moral and religious duty of the Christian faithful to oppose him.
I would not urge on anyone the sort of absolute-monarch view of the papal office that Enoch is suggesting.
But I'm not convinced by your response.
Here you seem to be advocating private judgment as to the domain within which the Pope's words should be taken as authoritative. So that, for example, were a Catholic to conclude that choice of method of contraception is not a moral issue and not an issue that forms part of the faith that comes to us from the apostles, then it would be perfectly licit to ignore papal teaching on this issue.
Which I suspect you wouldn't agree with.
I'm sure you can see that the sort of Catholic who talks up the authority of the Pope ("Rome has spoken, the case is closed") when they agree with the Pope's underlying worldview, but raises a whole lot of reservations when they get a Pope they don't agree with, can come across as less than totally honest and consistent.
The passages you quote suggest a bunch of people who are terrified by the possibility of abandoning a time-honoured position in favour of what might turn out to be (horror!) merely the latest cultural fad. Whilst being totally unguarded as to the opposite risk of bringing Christian faith into disrepute by linking it inextricably with the discredited cosmology and philosophy of an earlier age. Is this ultra-conservatism one of the contending titans ?
Do you mean that it's OK to disagree with the Pope if you think he's not being traditional enough, but not-OK to disagree with him for not being just or merciful or consistent with the evidence or logically sound enough ? And if so, what does that say about your value system ? Where is your treasure ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... I'm sure you can see that the sort of Catholic who talks up the authority of the Pope ("Rome has spoken, the case is closed") when they agree with the Pope's underlying worldview, but raises a whole lot of reservations when they get a Pope they don't agree with, can come across as less than totally honest and consistent. ...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Well put. Either that or fooling themselves.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Depends if you're an ultramontanist or not, dunnit! In theory, at least, the pope is only the servant of tradition. In practice, however, tradition is whatever the pope says it is, even if it contradicts that which was held to before, in which case it's put down to being merely a "developing understanding of tradition" or some other nonsense of some sort.
[ 09. January 2015, 01:58: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Here you seem to be advocating private judgment as to the domain within which the Pope's words should be taken as authoritative. So that, for example, were a Catholic to conclude that choice of method of contraception is not a moral issue and not an issue that forms part of the faith that comes to us from the apostles, then it would be perfectly licit to ignore papal teaching on this issue.
The problem with all these discussions is that unless I give some totally clear-cut rules that one can follow automatically without any thought, you will claim that I'm making arbitrary distinctions. But neither is there such a set of rules nor are the distinctions arbitrary. Nobody who has bothered looking at the historical Church and her teachings could come to the conclusion that sexual morals in general, and contraception in particular, is not a valid field for potential papal teachings. That's just dumb, and rhetorics aside, you of course know that it is. There is long history of concern with such questions in the Church. What is required here is hence informed and faithful judgement. And there is no cookie-cutter rule for what that means. In the end however any judgement we make will be private. That is unavoidable.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The passages you quote suggest a bunch of people who are terrified by the possibility of abandoning a time-honoured position in favour of what might turn out to be (horror!) merely the latest cultural fad. Whilst being totally unguarded as to the opposite risk of bringing Christian faith into disrepute by linking it inextricably with the discredited cosmology and philosophy of an earlier age. Is this ultra-conservatism one of the contending titans ?
The "ultra-conservatism" I quoted - rather than your caricature thereof - is simply Catholic, and all contrary is straight-up anathema, as per 1st Vatican, 2nd Nicaea, and 4th Constantinople.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you mean that it's OK to disagree with the Pope if you think he's not being traditional enough, but not-OK to disagree with him for not being just or merciful or consistent with the evidence or logically sound enough ? And if so, what does that say about your value system ? Where is your treasure ?
Once more you demand clear rules that cannot exist. However, generally speaking it is much easier to show that the pope is illogical than that he is unjust. It is much easier to show that the pope acts against tradition than that he lacks mercy. And in case of doubt one should side with the accused. Furthermore, the personal failings of a pope, or even his blunders in ecclesial government, are not in the same category of concern to me as his potential changes of doctrine. Because those changes will affect me and all the faithful, until Christ comes again. Whereas his other contemporary failures tend to wash out of the system with time.
So as "unfair" as that may be, it is indeed a breach of tradition that requires immediate push-back, as well as possibly the pope being insane, whereas the pope being an asshole, a pervert, a power-monger, or what have you ..., is more survivable for the Church (as evident by the fact that the Church has survived those kinds of popes).
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Well put. Either that or fooling themselves.
I know what to expect of Russ, but you are painting yourself into a corner here. Who exactly of the >1 billion Catholics is following the pope in the Enoch-approved manner? The liberals aren't. The culturalists aren't. The conservatives aren't. The traditionalists aren't. Maybe it makes you happy to think that the RCC is crypto-Protestant throughout by your idea of Catholicism. But if no Catholic agrees with you, then what precisely is the point of that?
I quoted Melchior Cano at you. Did his words about the pope sound "Crypto-Protestant" to you? Well, he was a key theologian at the Council of Trent, the counter-Protestant council, and the work I was quoting from ("De Locis Theologicis") is often considered to be the most important Catholic theological text of the Renaissance.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In theory, at least, the pope is only the servant of tradition. In practice, however, tradition is whatever the pope says it is, even if it contradicts that which was held to before, in which case it's put down to being merely a "developing understanding of tradition" or some other nonsense of some sort.
And proof of that claim is provided by what, precisely? The Orthodox denial of any development of doctrine and discipline whatsoever - unless it is Palamite, or Nikonian, or Alexian... ?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Even for the Orthodox the bishop of Rome has played a major part in the history of the Christian church.Many great minds have accepted the teachings of the papacy.Whilst that in no way makes these teachings true,it does at least indicate that they should not be dismissed airily as 'nonsense of some sort'.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB and others, I've said this before on other threads, and in various different ways. I'm going to say it again.
I can't see how one can be a Catholic and argue that the Pope has got something wrong.
If the Pope says the Catholic Church has got to change its line on something, then a good Catholic, and particularly a traditionalist one, must accept that. The thought that either oneself, or a group of people one associates with, might know better than the Pope is being a Protestant in Catholic clothing.
So long as the Pope has not decided, Catholics can and should debate these things. You all, even the unmarried mother in a Brazilian barrio, have a part to play in helping him discern. It's particularly inspiring that he has asked you to do so. But if he does decide, that's like having a Bull delivered with your morning papers. If the Pope decides the teaching on remarriage (say) must stay the same, it stays the same. If he decides it will change, it changes. Those Catholics who are traditionalists and would rather he had decided differently, must obey and change with him.
I don't agree with that approach to theology. But I'm not a Catholic.
Utter nonsense and nothing more than the usual ignorant and stupid Protestant caricature of Catholicism.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Even for the Orthodox the bishop of Rome has played a major part in the history of the Christian church.Many great minds have accepted the teachings of the papacy.Whilst that in no way makes these teachings true,it does at least indicate that they should not be dismissed airily as 'nonsense of some sort'.
And once upon a time the bishop of Rome was Orthodox, yet he didn't claim immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church and neither did he claim infalibility.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB and others, I've said this before on other threads, and in various different ways. I'm going to say it again.
I can't see how one can be a Catholic and argue that the Pope has got something wrong.
If the Pope says the Catholic Church has got to change its line on something, then a good Catholic, and particularly a traditionalist one, must accept that. The thought that either oneself, or a group of people one associates with, might know better than the Pope is being a Protestant in Catholic clothing.
So long as the Pope has not decided, Catholics can and should debate these things. You all, even the unmarried mother in a Brazilian barrio, have a part to play in helping him discern. It's particularly inspiring that he has asked you to do so. But if he does decide, that's like having a Bull delivered with your morning papers. If the Pope decides the teaching on remarriage (say) must stay the same, it stays the same. If he decides it will change, it changes. Those Catholics who are traditionalists and would rather he had decided differently, must obey and change with him.
I don't agree with that approach to theology. But I'm not a Catholic.
Utter nonsense and nothing more than the usual ignorant and stupid Protestant caricature of Catholicism.
Not quite so fast. I know perfectly well that most Catholics don't think that way. But it is such great fun to bait those on the Ship or elsewhere of the William George Ward, Hilaire Belloc, Ludwig Ott tendency.
If you were to ask, do I think that is the irresistible logic of that approach, though, I would have to say yes. I don't think one can consistently be that sort of traditionalist and not obey the Pope if he issues an encyclical or Bull one disagrees with.
Or to put it the other way round, that sort of Catholic can only disagree with the Pope if they become the sort of person they regard as 'no true Catholic'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Not quite sure whether there is a titanic struggle, or whether this is just journalistic overstatement.
But if there is, perhaps it's between the Lawful Neutral and the Neutral Good ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
for example, were a Catholic to conclude that choice of method of contraception is not a moral issue and not an issue that forms part of the faith that comes to us from the apostles, then it would be perfectly licit to ignore papal teaching on this issue.
The problem with all these discussions is that unless I give some totally clear-cut rules that one can follow automatically without any thought, you will claim that I'm making arbitrary distinctions. But neither is there such a set of rules nor are the distinctions arbitrary. Nobody who has bothered looking at the historical Church and her teachings could come to the conclusion that sexual morals in general, and contraception in particular, is not a valid field for potential papal teachings. That's just dumb, and rhetorics aside, you of course know that it is. There is long history of concern with such questions in the Church. What is required here is hence informed and faithful judgement. And there is no cookie-cutter rule for what that means. In the end however any judgement we make will be private. That is unavoidable.
You seem to be saying that, descriptively, everyone necessarily makes a judgment as to whether any particular utterance of the Pope represents the mind of the Church. Or not.
"Necessarily" implies that making such a judgment is not morally wrong as such.
Such a judgment may be wrongly made by lack of charity - being too willing to see him as barking mad, or influenced by Satan, or the spokesman for a particular faction or tendency within the church, for example. Or wrongly made by lack of prudence - rushing to judgment, failing to think things through and consider what other Christians have thought.
But coming to an incorrect conclusion by honest mistake seems a clear possibility. And you rightly suggest that this should be the charitable assumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary...
You seem to deny also that there are hard-and-fast rules by which such a judgment may be known to be incorrect. Which suggests that a certain amount of tolerance of differing views is in order.
In complex situations where a balance has to be struck between arguments or principles in tension, so much comes down to emphasis. And it's so much more fun to anathematize those with whom you disagree than to give a measured statement that they're over-emphasizing X and under-emphasizing Y...
I suspect there's a philosophical term for the sort of Frenchman who accepts any flawed or fallacious argument provided that it leads to a conclusion that France is right and France is great. And refuses to accept the validity of any principle by which France can be criticized.
Don't be that sort of Catholic. I know you want to aim higher than that...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
(Tangent, only justified if at all by the fact this thread has been quiet.)
Another reason to cheer the Pope. It seems something went wrong with the arrangements for the midnight Mass at St Peter's this year, and a soprano had to be flown in at the last minute from London. Afterwards, someone nervously informed the Pope that she was Jewish. He smiled and replied, "So was Mary". (From Private Eye)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Afterwards, someone nervously informed the Pope that she was Jewish. He smiled and replied, "So was Mary". (From Private Eye)
Something doesn't ring true to me about that, I must say. Why were they nervous about it? Who were they? The Vatican - and Francis personally and his immediate predecessors - has had generally excellent relations with the Jewish people for decades. That nervousness makes no sense to me.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Presumably the speaker thought there might be a problem with a person not of the correct faith taking a significant part in the service. After all, it isn't very long ago since that particular faith group was totally anathematised by that particular church.
Old bad habits die hard, as we see in the general rise in anti-Semitism across Europe.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Not buying it, HB. Suppose we restrict ourselves to even so long a period as the last hundred years: when in that time has there been a bar on non-Catholic musicians performing at Masses?
But especially today, 50 years post-Vatican II and with Francis on the throne, who on earth so close to the Vatican - a functionary of St Peter's, no less - would really think that a Jewish singer flown in in an emergency to sing at a Mass would be in any way frowned or found problematic by the current pope and openly express that worry to him?
But of course I can see that someone who wanted to make the current pontiff (many liberals' flavour of the month) look good particularly at the expense of Vatican functionaries (the "old guard") would peddle such a story - too good not to be true, yeah? Which is another reason for me to mistrust it.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In theory, at least, the pope is only the servant of tradition.
Actually, no. The pope is supposed to be the servant of the servants of God.
And while such service may include reminding us (lazy servants as we are) of the value of traditions that are in danger of being forgotten, the job description does not include promoting tradition for its own sake, or leading a traditionalist faction within the body of Christian believers.
The pope is supposed to help us to promote Gospel values, not the values of hierarchy, authority and conservatism.
All is not as it should be, and a pope who recognises that and tries to do something about it, rather than pretending that everything that we have inherited from the generation before is perfect, is doing a worthwhile service.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
(Tangent, only justified if at all by the fact this thread has been quiet.)
Another reason to cheer the Pope. It seems something went wrong with the arrangements for the midnight Mass at St Peter's this year, and a soprano had to be flown in at the last minute from London. Afterwards, someone nervously informed the Pope that she was Jewish. He smiled and replied, "So was Mary". (From Private Eye)
An Israeli news website has it differently:
quote:
The Vatican discovered [Israeli soprano Chen] Reiss via Vienna's Philharmonic Symphony. She sang the same composition with the symphony at a festival for religious music two years ago. The pope himself was only told that the singer was Israeli 24 hours before the mass. "I approve very much, because Mary was also Jewish," he said.
They don't mention it being an emergency arrangement, or her being nervous.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect there's a philosophical term for the sort of Frenchman who accepts any flawed or fallacious argument provided that it leads to a conclusion that France is right and France is great. And refuses to accept the validity of any principle by which France can be criticized.
Don't be that sort of Catholic. I know you want to aim higher than that...
I find it rather hilarious how all your highfalutin' crap in the end so readily boils down to an argumentum ad hominem.
France is great. And if you have a problem with that, then I'm sure you can find a lake to jump into.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In theory, at least, the pope is only the servant of tradition.
Actually, no. The pope is supposed to be the servant of the servants of God.
And thus he is the servant of the servants of that true tradition which is Divine in origin, guarded by the Holy Spirit throughout the ages, and so terribly sticks in your craw.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
An Israeli news website has it differently:
quote:
The Vatican discovered [Israeli soprano Chen] Reiss via Vienna's Philharmonic Symphony. She sang the same composition with the symphony at a festival for religious music two years ago. The pope himself was only told that the singer was Israeli 24 hours before the mass. "I approve very much, because Mary was also Jewish," he said.
They don't mention it being an emergency arrangement, or her being nervous.
All of this misses the point. The potential problem is not simply that the singer is Jewish. That's ridiculous. Why would anyone have an issue with a Jewish singer as such? I doubt that there ever was a time where a pope would have rejected a singer simply because they were Jewish. The potential problem is that this Jewish singer was performing at the Vatican's Christmas mass and was specifically singing Mozart's "Et incarnatus est", which is the part of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed that asserts that Christ was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. Here is the performance in context, she is on at 3:14.
In other words, whether as Jew or possibly as secular person (no word on whether she is a practicing Jew, after all) she was singing something she didn't believe in, indeed something that is famously contrary to the Jewish faith as understood by contemporary Rabbinic Judaism, precisely at a point in a religious ceremony where this belief was being asserted by virtue of her singing it.
That is problematic, though it is hardly surprising that the singer herself thought of this as nothing more than a nice step in her singing career. The "answer" that the pope apparently gave was a pious soundbite that serves well to shake off the dumb secular press. But if you think about it, it is actually quite horrible, because it appropriates the singer's belief by a comparison to the Virgin Mary: the Jewish Virgin Mary gave her flesh to incarnate God, thereby de facto becoming the most intimate Christian, and the Jewish singer gives her voice to a celebration thereof, thereby de facto making her assert this Christian belief herself. Or it insults the Virgin Mary by pretending that her acceptance of becoming Christ's mother is comparable to a singer doing a paid job irrespective of what it may mean religiously.
In truth, hiring a Jewish singer for this is "OK" precisely because it is nothing like the Virgin Mary, but because we treat this person simply as a beautiful voice. It is "OK" for her to sing a part of a Creed that she does not believe in, and quite possibly actively believes against, because she is being treated as just a more impressive live version of an audio recording. She delivers a product, not a conviction, and this is part of a "show" that is being put on.
In turn, that is problematic, because the liturgy is not supposed to be a "show" in that sense, and certainly voicing the Creed is supposed to be an active affirmation of belief. I note that liturgical singing of a creed goes well beyond the more typical "non-believing organist playing accompanying music at church". But anyway, my point is that the real problems here are exactly the reverse of the secular sensibilities. If there is any anti-Semitism to be attributed here, then it is making a Jew sing this in this particular Christian religious context, rather than by not doing so.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
From personal experience I can say that on a good number of the occasions musicians performing at religious services may not share fully the faith of the religious body organising the event.
The same can be said of a number of 'worshippers' participating in some way in a religious rite.
I understand IngoB's worry that the singer at St Peter's may have been obliged to sing something which goes against her conscience,but surely she could not have been forced to take part.She must have done so willingly.
I understand also IngoB's point that this part of the liturgy (Et incarnates est )on Christmas night recalling the birth of Christ is a very important part of the liturgy.
One could say positively that the singer identified as Israeli ( and possibly Jewish,possibly observant Jewish) was happy to participate in this Christian liturgy and put her voice at the service of the Catholic church in helping to communicate the message of the birth of Christ.
If you want to be evangelic about it, it is just possible that the liturgy and the rite may just make her want to investigate Christianity more fully, (assuming that she is not already a Christian).
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
But participation is for the faithful. Unbelievers who are present merely observe.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Another point that comes to mind, and bit of a tangent I'm afraid, is that the above example merely demonstrates the unsuitability of such music to the liturgy. I would argue that as soon as you need to search for highly trained muscisians it ceases to be liturgical and becomes a mere performance. That's beauty of chant, I suppose, because it can be used everywhere at all times, even if it's just the priest and deacon. That's not to say that such pieces of music aren't in anyway beautiful or that they don't lift the mind in a spiritual sense, only that they are unsuitable.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Another point that comes to mind, and bit of a tangent I'm afraid, is that the above example merely demonstrates the unsuitability of such music to the liturgy. I would argue that as soon as you need to search for highly trained muscisians it ceases to be liturgical and becomes a mere performance. That's beauty of chant, I suppose, because it can be used everywhere at all times, even if it's just the priest and deacon. That's not to say that such pieces of music aren't in anyway beautiful or that they don't lift the mind in a spiritual sense, only that they are unsuitable.
I don't think any liturgical music is inherently unsuitable. It becomes so if the aim, in using the music, is to provide a brilliant performance of a technically difficult piece.
Loving amateurs can use great works - as well as chant - to give glory to God, without aiming for or achieving technical excellence at either.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I think it can be valid to go beyond the ordinary in a liturgical celebration, for special occasions. I think it can be a prudent choice to bring in unbelievers to stage such an extraordinary celebration, or for that matter an ordinary one. I think a televised "showpiece" mass is certainly a special occasion where one might want to "shine" by employing the talents of unbelievers. We do not have to make everything liturgical a key expression of faith crucial to conscience. This is pushing things too far towards a "Puritan" ideal. A bit of "advertisement by beauty" is allowable, even if we go shopping for it elsewhere.
That said, we cannot make liturgy just that - a show staged for others. That is going too far in the other direction. There needs to be a careful management of the "theatrical" aspects aimed at the public on such special occasions, or it indeed becomes a meaningless theatre. And the key problem in this particular case is that voicing the Creed has a particular and clear significance in the liturgy. If there is one thing - besides the consecration and reception of the host, obviously - that one cannot simply assign to a non-believer in the liturgical context, then it must be the confession of faith. That's just a bad idea.
On top of that, the particular part of the Creed that was assigned here is essentially incompatible with the assumed faith of the unbeliever, or at least with faith she belongs to by cultural ties. It is almost as if someone looked at the Creed and said: What is the essential deal breaker for Jews, on what issue did we fundamentally drift apart originally? And then they put the Christian view on that in the mouth of a Jewish woman. That's just ... seriously horrible. That the singer didn't care tells us something about the singer. That the pope waved this aside with a comment that is at least as bad as hiring the woman tells us something about this pope. He has either no liturgical sensibilities, or he is a smooth operator concerning the secular press, or both.
At any rate, this was not a good thing. As far as the supposed identification of chant with worship for the ordinary man goes - well, not really. I love Gregorian chant, to the point where I went on course to learn how to sing it. I think RC liturgy should bring back Gregorian chant for near everything, all responses, and all the times we sing in mass, but for say one hymn at the end. That said, if you ever crack open the Liber Usualis and look at the actual chants in there, you will soon discover that there are of course plenty of chant pieces that the ordinary man or woman in the pew will find rather difficult indeed. In other words, Gregorian chant is in the end a kind of music, and competent musicians will always stretch what is musically possible. So called melismatic or florid chant, which has many notes per syllable, is typically performed by a competent soloist and was never designed to be sung by everyone. And yes, I do think that has its place. It is good when we all offer worship together communally. It is also good when we offer in worship the best our most talented individuals can achieve. What is needed is awareness and intentionality in worship, a careful and respectful management of the meaning of the liturgical act. Then many things can be done without harm. What kills liturgy is disrespectful sloppiness and a focus on man instead of God.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
It seems to me that the disagreement is just whether it was a part of the service that may not be said by an unbeliever. I'd say that such parts are the sacramental parts which should not be said by any other lay person. Apparently in the UMC, where I often attend services, all but a very small part of the liturgy of communion may be said by a lay person. I have only seen this done once, but I found it intensely wrong. It made the pastor's role--and the elements' role--feel disconnected from the rest of the service, and that seemed inappropriate. I digress in this way to say that I certainly agree that certain parts of the service may not be said as performance. They simply must be believed. However I don't really get any other part of the service as performance either. I think that if one accepts a choir's performance as a gift to God* without needing to catechize the choristers, one may just as well accept a Jewish woman's sung statement of something vital to our faith. The alternative is needing to assume that the choir really does believe everything they say, and I have far too many friends in the choir to believe that.
*I'm not fully comfortable with that, but that's another thread
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
New thread on participation in worship...
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Don't be that sort of Catholic. I know you want to aim higher than that...
I find it rather hilarious how all your highfalutin' crap in the end so readily boils down to an argumentum ad hominem.
No. Ad hominem is playing the man not the ball, responding to the fact that it is you that is saying it rather than to what you're saying. This is the opposite. This is saying that the crap you're currently spouting is the problem and inviting you not to identify yourself with it.
quote:
France is great. And if you have a problem with that, then I'm sure you can find a lake to jump into.
I have no problem with Francophiles as such. But people who pretend that they're interested in truth and justice and goodness and are really only interested in trying to secure a pro-French conclusion are pretty despicable...
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In theory, at least, the pope is only the servant of tradition.
Actually, no. The pope is supposed to be the servant of the servants of God.
And thus he is the servant of the servants of that true tradition which is Divine in origin, guarded by the Holy Spirit throughout the ages, and so terribly sticks in your craw.
I don't have a problem with tradition either. I like traditions. They tell us where we've come from. What I find hard to stomach is the sort of small-minded jobsworth who wants to impose their preferred tradition on everyone else, self-serving tradition, tradition for its own sake, tradition as the yardstick by which all things are assessed, tradition as the last word on where we're going.
Maybe I learnt at too young an age that the tradition of Sabbath-keeping exists for humankind, and not us for it.
Maybe the struggle is between those who know this and view tradition in that light, and those who don't ?
Best wishes,
Russ
[edited for code]
[ 19. January 2015, 05:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
"Pope opens doors to transsexual dubbed 'devil's daughter'." (Yahoo)
By the way, it was the man's own priest who called him that.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe the struggle is between those who know this and view tradition in that light, and those who don't?
If we were to strip away all the bias, falsehood and insult of your post, then indeed we could probably boil it down to a different conception of tradition. But I prefer to leave it as ugly as it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"Pope opens doors to transsexual dubbed 'devil's daughter'." (Yahoo) By the way, it was the man's own priest who called him that.
I'm sure the loud slurping noises from papal publicity stunts that suck up to the Zeitgeist will lead to millions of new converts to the RC faith. You just wait. And feel free to hold your breath while you do...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And if they stop breeding like rabbits the de-conversion rate will win.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
You prefer the ostracism and denouncement as a "Devil's Daughter" to the pope's acceptance then?
Lovely. Funny you should mention ugliness in the same post.
(x-Post with Martin60)
[ 28. January 2015, 13:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You prefer the ostracism and denouncement as a "Devil's Daughter" to the pope's acceptance then? Lovely. Funny you should mention ugliness in the same post.
Since you accuse me of this, I'm sure you can somehow back it up? I mean, other than by simply asserting this?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You prefer the ostracism and denouncement as a "Devil's Daughter" to the pope's acceptance then? Lovely. Funny you should mention ugliness in the same post.
Since you accuse me of this, I'm sure you can somehow back it up? I mean, other than by simply asserting this?
See that question mark? It means it was a question. I don't put question marks on assertions. I ask for confirmation. It was what I inferred from your post, but I'm open to elucidation.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
See that question mark? It means it was a question. I don't put question marks on assertions. I ask for confirmation. It was what I inferred from your post, but I'm open to elucidation.
Don't play games. It was a rhetorical question, as you well know.
If the Spanish parish priest actually said this, and I wouldn't trust the secular press further than I can spit concerning that, then this is obviously wrong and entirely unwarranted by RC teaching and pastoral practice. But two wrongs do not make a right.
The problem with papal actions like these is that they have signal value beyond the direct concerns of the people involved. Why does Yahoo publish this, and why does Golden Key point to it here? Because everybody is immediately seeking for meaning and signs in this. The pope simply cannot to do anything that has the remotest chance of going public in a pure one-on-one pastoral manner. Like the POTUS or other public figures of great influence, his ever move is watched with eagle's eyes. If Pope Francis doesn't realise that, then he is plain stupid. I don't think that he is stupid. If he does this knowingly, then let's be clear that as far as the signal value is concerned, this is either hypocritical or heretical. Let me stress that it is of course neither hypocritical nor heretical to show charity to a transsexual in a "Lesbian" relationship about to get "married". Neither is it wrong to say sorry for whatever uncharitable act some other priest may have committed, as a higher-ranking representative of the Church. The problem is located in the wider signal value that everybody immediately reads into such acts. Either the pope intends to change the Church's teaching on sexual morals and intimate relationships, then this is a signal of heresy. Or he doesn't, then this is a signal of hypocrisy.
Liberals love to compare the condemnation of active homosexuality with racism. Why not here? If a white POTUS in the racist US past would have publicly embraced a black man who had come into conflict with segregation laws, but at the same time would have done nothing to actually change those very laws, would that have solved the problem of racism? Hardly. It would only have had value (beyond the personal) because everybody would have read a potential future change of law into this act.
If the pope wants to signal to the world that the alleged behaviour of the Spanish parish priest is not OK, and will not be tolerated any longer, then he could have exercised his full power of governance against that priest. That's actually his job as the supreme governor of the Church till Christ returns! (Micromanaging is of course not generally a good idea, but sometimes a manager must step in to set things on the right track.) But that would have shown the papal office as what it is. Pope Francis has gone for the "soft" publicity stunt instead. It is a bad choice that in the long run will do more harm than good.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
See, I disagree about signals. Last time Pope Francis said he supported the church's teaching on some dead horse or other, my husband (liberal and indubitably Protestant) posted it to facebook, with the comment "In other news, bears still go in the woods.*" Now I'm sure some people, probably particularly people who don't know much about the Catholic church, were indeed hoping the pope would say the opposite, but some people will always be hoping/expecting that. When the pope shows love to someone in an sometimes abused group, my biggest take is that he intended it as a reminder to all of us to show love, even to people we disagree with, even to those who are not always welcomed everywhere. I'm pretty sure Diego Neria Lejarraga would be more socially normal (and welcomed) in my circles than Pope Francis', but he still treated him decently. I hope I can do the same with people I am uncomfortable with.
*Approximated from memory
[ 28. January 2015, 14:30: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Heresy? If accepting that some people are made miserable by the dissonance between their phenotypical gender and what they feel themselves innately to be, and that we can do something about that misery is heresy then chalk me up as a heretic. And a proud one at that.
I really, really, hope the Pope is signalling there'll be a change. And it's a change for the better, for a RCC that cares more about people than rules. Which it should, because people do matter more than rules.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
"Rules" as if to make it sound arbitrary. It's nothing to do with rules, as if this was akin to determining which days we should fast on.
[ 28. January 2015, 14:37: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This is in responses to IngoB's last post, not the ones since.
I still don't get how one who advocates a traditionalist understanding of Catholic teaching including on the papacy can argue that the Holy Father has got something wrong or made a mistake. It seems to be saying, 'I'll only follow St Ignatius's First Rule when the Holy Church thinks like I do'.
Of course we don't know how reliable this Yahoo report is. The media hasn't got a good reputation generally, and is fairly consistently worse than average when it reports religious affairs. My inclination is not to give the accuracy of this report the benefit of the doubt. So if this happened, we don't actually know which parts of it happened the way they are reported, what message the Pope was trying to convey or whether this was supposed to be confidential to Diego Neria Lejarraga but got leaked.
I'm not a Roman Catholic. But I would have no difficulty imagining a situation where the Pope might conclude that for the health of Diego Neria Lejarraga's immortal soul, it was good to meet him/her even though he/she did not fit neatly into the various categories of people conventionally in a state of grace. I even have little difficulty imagining the possibility that the Holy Father might want to signal to the faithful that publicly shaming those who did not fit those categories might not be the most charitable way of conducting church affairs. That might be irrespective of whether the church actually endorses or affirms everything that Diego Neria Lejarraga might do or have done. As Universal Bishop, I can even imagine that one might not mind too much if that message leaked to some of one's more authoritarian small town clergy. But I just do not know. It's not for me, or for anyone else to say.
I do stand, though, by what I've said thinking with the church. Even the thought, 'I'll only follow St Ignatius's First Rule when the Holy Church thinks like I do' is profoundly Protestant.
[ 28. January 2015, 14:50: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"Rules" as if to make it sound arbitrary. It's nothing to do with rules, as if this was akin to determining which days we should fast on.
Nonsense. It's everything about rules. You can call them principles if you like. You can call them what you like, but whatever you call them, people come first.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"Rules" as if to make it sound arbitrary. It's nothing to do with rules, as if this was akin to determining which days we should fast on.
Nonsense. It's everything about rules. You can call them principles if you like. You can call them what you like, but whatever you call them, people come first.
Yet what did our Lord say to the woman caught in adultery? Even though he showed her mercy did he condone her sin? No.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Enoch, I'm really not sure what you're not getting here. The Pope's infallibility extends only to pronouncements on faith and morals, and has to be explicitly invoked. Furthermore, no pronouncement intended as infallible can contradict church dogma or doctrine. He is the servant of Tradition, not its master.
Catholics do owe him obedience, but that has never meant he is free from criticism or that he cannot err on any point. And faced with a choice between obedience to the person of the Pope and obedience to what the Pope represents, a Catholic of conscience should always choose the latter.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
What the blithering blather has gender reassignment got to do with sin?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
That's a good question. As far as I can tell, the RCC considers gender dysphoria to be a mental illness, which suggests there is no culpability attached to it. Again, as far as I can tell the Church does not recognize gender reassignment.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm pretty sure Diego Neria Lejarraga would be more socially normal (and welcomed) in my circles than Pope Francis', but he still treated him decently.
Pope Francis did not treat him decently, in any simple sense. Rather he singled him out and arranged for an - inevitably public - demonstration of decency, if you so wish. It's a different kind of game that is being played there, a very public one, and I think Pope Francis should stop trading clarity on doctrine for the warm fuzzies from people who are at best neutral to the Church, if not decidedly inimical to her. Because that's effectively what he has been doing, in my opinion, whatever may have been his intentions.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Heresy? If accepting that some people are made miserable by the dissonance between their phenotypical gender and what they feel themselves innately to be, and that we can do something about that misery is heresy then chalk me up as a heretic. And a proud one at that.
Nice picking and choosing there... Hint: what I was actually considering as potentially heretic (if accepted) was indicated by the application of scare quotes.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I still don't get how one who advocates a traditionalist understanding of Catholic teaching including on the papacy can argue that the Holy Father has got something wrong or made a mistake.
And why precisely should any Catholic, or for that matter traditional Catholic, care that you don't get Catholicism? The pope is infallible only under very special circumstances, which furthermore need to be invoked by the pope explicitly and do not attach to his office automatically, much less to just every thing he does or says. Otherwise the pope is fallible, which means that he can get things wrong and make mistakes. It happens. I know no Catholic who is particularly threatened in their Catholicism by the fact that it happens (as much as they may rage against any real or perceived error of some pope or the other).
quote:
"New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law", J.P. Beal, J.A. Coriden, T.J. Green
Canon 1404 - The First See is judged by no one.
Canon 1404 is not a statement about the personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed, the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose his office. To fall from Peter's faith is to fall from his chair. [footnote 36: various references to canon law sources] The question, however, of who or what body (probably a general council) would determine whether, in fact, the pope had fallen into heresy is unclear historically and is obviously not settled by this canon.
"De Romano Pontifice", St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: "He would not be able to retain the episcopate, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church."
Summa Theologiae, St Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church
A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction. ... It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects." ... To presume oneself to be simply better than one's prelate, would seem to savor of presumptuous pride; but there is no presumption in thinking oneself better in some respect, because, in this life, no man is without some fault.
Apostolic Constitution "Cum Ex Apostolic Officio", Pope Paul IV
... if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, ... even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; ...
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
"The Church in Medieval Thought", Fausto Salvoni, Restoration Quarterly Vol. 2 No. 4 (1958): 205-19
Can the Pope become Heretic? In the Decree of Gratian we find this expression attributed by the Cardinal Deus Dedit (d. 1087) and Yves de Chartres to Boniface Archbishop of Mayence: "No one can judge the sins of the pope, who alone judges man, but can be judged by no one, except for the sin of heresy." (62) Innocent III asserted "the faith is very necessary for me, because I have only God as the judge of all by sins, but for the one sin against the faith I can be judged by the church."(63)
The medieval theologians did not study this possibility of heretical popes.(64) But all the canonists of the XII and XIII centuries accepted and agreed with the decree of Gratian. They acknowledged the possibility for the pope to become heretical. They questioned only how he can be judged by the church. Some canonists extended the authority of the church to judge the pope also to other sins.(65) But generally this authority was restricted to heresy.(66) According to Rufinus the heresy must be pertinacious,(67) that is, continuing after one or two admonitions. In that position the pope is inferior to every other Catholic Christian (minor quolibet catholico) said Huguccio.(68)
Though Cardinal Torquemada wrote that papal infallibility is caused by special assistance of the Holy Spirit, he really minimized its value. The pope indeed cannot only err as a private person, but he can also err in defining the creed. But his error, due to the liberty of the pope's will, cannot be adduced to prove the fallibility of the pope. He cannot therefore be deposed by the council because he is already displaced by himself for his heresy.(69)
I'm unfortunately unable to source online and in English translation quite a few medieval / early modern comments on this topic, so the above journal article will have to do. (In particular Pope Innocent III quite explicitly stated that the pope can become heretic, but his Sermons do not appear to be around in full translation, and I won't link to snippets that float around among Sedevacantists.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
That's a good question. As far as I can tell, the RCC considers gender dysphoria to be a mental illness, which suggests there is no culpability attached to it. Again, as far as I can tell the Church does not recognize gender reassignment.
I'm not so sure that this particular issue is done and dusted in RC teaching. But yes, one is clearly not culpable of any sin simply for having gender identity disorder, and no, the changed gender would (best I know) not be recognised where this could be relevant to the Church (concerning marriage or ordination).
Anyway, as far as I get it this is a man who has been surgically and medically altered to appear as a woman. And this person now has a "Lesbian" relationship to a woman with the intention to "marry" her. So if we accept that this man is now a woman, then by the lights of the Church she may not become sexually active as a Lesbian and decidedly cannot marry another woman (at least certainly not sacramentally in the Church). But if we do not accept that this man is now a woman, then he presumably has had his penis removed surgically and hence now has a dire impediment to sacramental marriage, namely antecedent and perpetual impotence (Canon 1084). And of course, also here sex before marriage would be sinful. So basically, this particular relationship - if it is anything but sibling and sister - cannot possibly work in the eyes of the Church. If the pope let it be assumed by his actions that he cannot manage to judge that this is the case, then he is de facto undermining the clear teaching of the Church.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
