Posted on 10/24/2014 12:44:23 PM PDT by marshmallow
Writing in the aftermath of "the Synod", Professor Roberto de Mattei, perhaps the greatest Church historian of our time, wrote "Judgement, with its resulting definition of truths and condemnation of errors, is the jurisdiction par excellence of the Vicar of Christ, supreme guardian and judge of faith and morality".
These wise observations instantly put me in mind of some words of a man who had soaked himself in the history of the first Christian centuries, our own Blessed John Henry Newman:
"[I]t is one of the reproaches urged against the Church of Rome, that it has originated nothing, and has only served as a sort of remora or break in the development of doctrine. And it is an objection which I embrace as a truth; for such I conceive to be the main purpose of its extraordinary gift. ".
I feel supremely comfortable with these words; and I note that Newman is making exactly the same point as that advanced by Professor de Mattei. I have no problem with the idea of a pope who keeps anathemas under his camauro. A pontiff who issues a Syllabus of Errors seems to me a pontiff who is earning his paycheck. When Pio Nono, with the assent of Vatican I, issued his admirable negative, "The Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter so that by his revelation they should reveal new teaching", I would have applauded. Three cheers for the author of Pascendi Dominici gregis. Cardinal Ratzinger's insistence that the Pope is but the humble servant of Tradition had me raising my glass to drink his toast. (Indeed, during his Pontificate I was rarely sober.)
Newman went on to write with approval about the the lack of creativity among the early popes: "The Church of Rome possessed no great mind in the whole period of persecution. Afterwards, for a long while, it has not a single doctor to show". The Roman Church and its bishop, long before the concept of Conciliarism was even a glint in the eye of the Emperor Constantine, were bulwarks against error, barriers against the brilliant and innovative theologians who dazzled the intellectual world, and whom we now call heretics; but those early popes were not mighty teachers. S Leo? Even he, Newman points out, was but "the teacher of one point of doctrine". S Gregory? He "has no place in dogma or philosophy". The great orthodox thinkers, writers and and preachers, the men who directed and influenced Councils, who ex consensu Ecclesiae are now its authoritative Fathers and Doctors, mostly lived far from Rome and, in many cases, were not even Bishops.
Let me put my cards on the table. The Papacy, as Dix loved to emphasise, existed before Councils, and it gave many of its greatest services to Christendom before the "Conciliar period". Its service as a remora against innovation has operated, in our own time, outside Councils and without didactic brilliance. Humanae vitae was not a great document; it was not full of the splendid and moving tropes of the inspirational teacher; it was more important than that. It simply held the line against developments which were destined to subvert the entire structure of sexuality hardwired into human nature. And its promulgation was done, against the advice of his very own Commission of Experts, by a pope whom his predecessor had described as not a little amletico. (One might also mention his Mysterium Fidei, reaffirming Trent and putting down errors like 'Transsignification'.) Ordinatio sacerdotalis lacks any explanations whatsoever. It just makes clear, with a terseness and brevity which cannot often have been equaled in Papal documents, where error lies.
These two Papal interventions are more important than all the wordage of Vatican II. Because, unlike much of Vatican II, they do engage with, and judge, errors which were getting around and did need to be judged. "Judgement is the jurisdiction par excellence of the Vicar of Christ". (Vatican II, surely, cannot have the unbreakable for-ever authority of, say, Nicea or Trent, simply because it issued no anathemas, set in place no new doctrinal ROAD CLOSED signs, but simply addressed with openness and optimism what it called 'the World of today'.)
When B Paul VI condemned Contraception, and S John Paul II the attempted Ordination of women, this was the selfsame Papacy, acting in precisely the same way, which gave Marcion the brush-off when he turned up in Rome in the 140s with his proto-Nazi claptrap. The condemnation of Marcionism is not weakened by the fact that it rested on no "Conciliar Mandate", or by the complete absence of any brilliant teaching document issued by some wonderfully clever Roman Pontiff.
Very occasionally, a Pope is, in addition to being Pope, also an important Teacher. One thinks of Innocent III, Benedict XIV, Benedict XVI. Thank God for such rare and glorious exceptions, such uncovenanted coincidences. But they are not what the Papacy is about. At base, the Pope is the (life-saving) man who goes around sticking into the ground the notices which say BEWARE OF MINES.
That is what Pope Francis, like all his predecessors, is for. If he were ever to ask us, in his direct and unpompous way, "Hey folks! Who am I to judge?", our answer would be "THE POPE!!!")
I guess I am still confused about the papacy, because I was taught that Judgement was the jurisdiction of God, and God alone. I (perhaps mistakenly) also was taught that God himself claims it as His jurisdiction, and His alone.
Why is the FR Forum constantly choked with all of this Catholic minutiae? Your finer points of Catholic theology really don’t belong in a news forum. Why not start your own website that aggregates church news important to Catholics as FR aggregates national and world news important to conservatives?
Catholicism is a religion.
Tell us about yours.........if there's anything to tell.
It seems like y’all are trying too hard to make others believe like you do. Seems like a cult trying to justify beliefs. I am a Christian first, and a Southern Baptist who believes in the Bible, word by word.
They don't appear to have a problem with Catholic threads when they're their own. Only when they deal with "minutiae".
Maybe FR should hang out a shingle...."Catholicism unwelcome here"
Yet it is those stories on which you almost exclusively comment.
Strange?
No. Just a garden variety Catholic bigot. Just like the bigot Gamecock. Both obsessed with bashing Catholics and Catholicism in general with little else between their ears or commented on in forum.
marshmallow:
As for the Question as to their religion, anti-Catholicism is their religion. Their small hate filled minds can absorb little else. Their hatred for all things Catholic is all consuming.
“I was taught that Judgement was the jurisdiction of God, and God alone.”
1 Corinthians 6:3.
“Why is the FR Forum constantly choked with all of this Catholic minutiae?”
Choked? No, there are just a few very active Catholic posters here. And?
“Your finer points of Catholic theology really don’t belong in a news forum.”
It’s a Religion Forum - and it doesn’t belong to you.
“Why not start your own website that aggregates church news important to Catholics as FR aggregates national and world news important to conservatives?”
Again, this is a RELIGION forum.
The truth then and the truth today. The Vatican is a whorehouse for homosexual, cross-dressing vermin who cynically steal from fools hoping to buy paradise. Dr. Thorne
I actually didn’t get the impression that the OP was trying to make you believe like him/her. It sounded to me like he/she was just trying to clear up misconceptions about the papacy.
Catholic derangement syndrome. Most of what I see is a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda. Many articles posted for that purpose.
While we are alive Christ is perfect mercy. At the moment of our death Christ is perfect justice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.