Criticizing the Pope
#31
(03-03-2016, 03:34 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote:
(03-03-2016, 03:26 PM)ermy_law Wrote: I cannot understand how it would ever be impermissible to point out that someone is wrong simply because that person happens to hold a particular office.  Offices do not stop people from being wrong.  In fact, the higher the office and the greater the reach of the office, the greater the impact of the officeholder's wrongness.

It seems to me that many people seem to conflate the ideas of manners with "respect."  If you really think that the pope is wrong, then it is he that is disrespecting his office.  To respect the office, then, might require a rather forceful and unmanned refutation of his errors.

"President Obama, your attempt to appoint a replacement for Scalia is an overreach that we cannot condone"

VS

"Listen you closet Mohammadian!  If you think that we'll let you appoint anyone then you're an even bigger idiot than we thought!"

If you were calling the pope names that don't have a basis in reality, that is a separate issue from criticizing him.  If you're saying that the pope is a heretic and should be deposed, that is just a statement of fact stated in the simplest way as possible. 

____

By the way, Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that the President "shall nominate" and "shall appoint" judges to the Supreme Court.  In the law, "shall" is a command akin to "must."  The president, then, has a constitutional obligation to nominate and appoint a candidate to replace Scalia.
Reply
#32
(03-03-2016, 03:37 PM)J Michael Wrote: Am I incorrect in understanding that an ecumenical council can remove a pope?

I've heard good arguments for both sides.  Still, we don't have an ecumenical council convened at the moment and my (admittedly limited) understanding is that only the Pope can call one, so...
Reply
#33
(03-03-2016, 03:49 PM)ermy_law Wrote: If you were calling the pope names that don't have a basis in reality, that is a separate issue from criticizing him.

It's a separate issue, but name calling (even if you happen to think that it's true) is counter-productive.  People just don't respond well to arguments that contain insults, unless they already believe the same thing already.  If you're content to "preach to the choir", then why even bother going through the motions of dialog with anyone else?

Quote:If you're saying that the pope is a heretic and should be deposed, that is just a statement of fact stated in the simplest way as possible. 

I'm not part of the hierarchy and (I'm assuming) neither are you.  Neither of us has any authority to label anyone a heretic.  We can point out error, but that's the extent of it.

Quote:____

By the way, Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that the President "shall nominate" and "shall appoint" judges to the Supreme Court.  In the law, "shall" is a command akin to "must."  The president, then, has a constitutional obligation to nominate and appoint a candidate to replace Scalia.

All true.  That's missing the forest for the trees, though, isn't it?  Which Republican would you be more inclined to listen to, even if you disagree with them?
Reply
#34
(03-03-2016, 04:08 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote:
(03-03-2016, 03:37 PM)J Michael Wrote: Am I incorrect in understanding that an ecumenical council can remove a pope?

I've heard good arguments for both sides.  Still, we don't have an ecumenical council convened at the moment and my (admittedly limited) understanding is that only the Pope can call one, so...

I don't know the details or exact history of it all but I'm pretty sure that popes have been deposed before, apart from an EC that was convoked by the same pope it was to depose.  Where there's a will, there's a way... :)
Reply
#35
(03-03-2016, 04:22 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote:
(03-03-2016, 03:49 PM)ermy_law Wrote:
Quote:If you're saying that the pope is a heretic and should be deposed, that is just a statement of fact stated in the simplest way as possible. 

I'm not part of the hierarchy and (I'm assuming) neither are you.  Neither of us has any authority to label anyone a heretic.  We can point out error, but that's the extent of it.

I disagree with the assumption that one gets some special knowledge as a result of being ordained into the hierarchy that bestows upon that person the power to take note of reality. 

I know the definition of heretic.  I know what the church teaches.  I know what the pope says and does.  I don't need to be ordained to label him a heretic.

If you had a co-worker who told you that he was Catholic, but he did not believe in the Trinity, opting instead to believe in a Quadrinity, would you be able to recognize this person as a heretic?

___

I don't understand your forest/trees comment about appointing a SCOTUS justice.
Reply
#36
(03-03-2016, 04:25 PM)J Michael Wrote: I don't know the details or exact history of it all but I'm pretty sure that popes have been deposed before, apart from an EC that was convoked by the same pope it was to depose.  Where there's a will, there's a way... :)

I know that some Anti-Popes have been deposed, but that begs the question: if Francis is an Anti-Pope, then who's the Pope? Benedict? Michael? Gregory?
Reply
#37
(03-03-2016, 04:36 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote:
(03-03-2016, 04:25 PM)J Michael Wrote: I don't know the details or exact history of it all but I'm pretty sure that popes have been deposed before, apart from an EC that was convoked by the same pope it was to depose.  Where there's a will, there's a way... :)

I know that some Anti-Popes have been deposed, but that begs the question: if Francis is an Anti-Pope, then who's the Pope? Benedict? Michael? Gregory?

Beats me!! :grin:  Besides, given the amount of attention that I pay to anyone called "Pope", it doesn't matter a whole helluva lot to me. :O :O :grin:
Reply
#38
(03-03-2016, 04:35 PM)ermy_law Wrote: I disagree with the assumption that one gets some special knowledge as a result of being ordained into the hierarchy that bestows upon that person the power to take note of reality. 

I know the definition of heretic.  I know what the church teaches.  I know what the pope says and does.  I don't need to be ordained to label him a heretic.

You're at odds with what the Catholic Encyclodedia says on the matter.

Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:The first council was a meeting of the Apostles at Jerusalem in order to put an end to the judaizing tendencies among the first Christians. It is the type of all succeeding councils: bishops in union with the head of the Church, and guided by the Holy Ghost, sit as judges in matters of faith and morals.
...
But what authority is to lay down the law as to what is or is not essential? It is certainly not the authority of individuals. By entering a society, whichever it be, the individual gives up part of his individuality to be merged into the community. And that part is precisely his private judgment on the essentials: if he resumes his liberty he ipso facto separates himself from his church. The decision, therefore, rests with the constitutional authority of the society--in the Church with the hierarchy acting as teacher and guardian of the faith.
...
The substitution of private judgment for the teaching magisterium has been the dissolvent of all sects who have adopted it. Only those sects exhibit a certain consistency in which private judgment is a dead letter and the teaching is carried on according to confessions and catechisms by a trained clergy.

Quote:If you had a co-worker who told you that he was Catholic, but he did not believe in the Trinity, opting instead to believe in a Quadrinity, would you be able to recognize this person as a heretic?

I'd be able to see his heretical belief, and I'd challenge him on it.  That's not the same thing as declaring him a heretic.

Quote:___

I don't understand your forest/trees comment about appointing a SCOTUS justice.

miss the forest for the trees

Reply
#39
(03-03-2016, 04:43 PM)J Michael Wrote: Beats me!! :grin:  Besides, given the amount of attention that I pay to anyone called "Pope", it doesn't matter a whole helluva lot to me. :O :O :grin:

Exactly.  In my day to day life, it doesn't make much of a difference either and it didn't matter to the vast majority of Catholic throughout history.  They trusted God to keep His promise.  So should we.  :)
Reply
#40
So, in your view, there is a meaningful difference between someone who holds an heretical belief and a heretic?  Is not a heretic, by definition, one who holds an heretical belief? 

As you can see in the quote you provided, the Church recognizes the doctrine in some way: it is expounded by the magisterium.  Once the magisterium has taught the doctrine, it is possible to make evaulations about whether someone holds the established doctrine as true or not, especially when that person makes public statements and engages in public acts.  That is why you would be able to take notice of your hypothetical co-worker's heretical beliefs.  That, combined with your knowledge that this hypothetical person professes to be Catholic, supports the judgment that the person is a heretic.

There is a secondary question related to the culpability that this person has for his heresy, but that isn't what we're talking about here, since I would hope most people would expect the pope to have some knowledge of the Church's teachings, which makes his heresy of the culpable sort.



I know what the phrase "forest for the trees" means, but you didn't use it in a way that makes sense.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)