Pope Explains Authority and the Priesthood
Says Role of Clergy Is That of Guide, Teacher
VATICAN CITY, MAY 26, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The Pope cannot do whatever he wants, and instead must obey Christ and his Church, Benedict XVI says.
"He clarified that "even the Pope -- point of reference for all the other pastors and for the communion of the Church -- cannot do what he wants; on the contrary, the Pope is custodian of the obedience to Christ, to his word taken up again in the 'regula fidei,' in the Creed of the Church, and must proceed in obedience to Christ and to his Church."
[source]
They always have held that the pope was "the servant of the servants of God."
ReplyDeleteI've never seen a pope try to actually apply that notion, though. Rather than being a "servant," I think it's safe to say that Popes have always asserted that they are bosses.
No John, it's Luther&Calvin who always said they were the bosses. Luther's arrogance and Calvin's desire to spy on the Geneveans are pretty well known. I'll admit that we've had some Popes that were not up to snuff, but they were not the founders of our faith, like Marty&Cal were of their sects, and no Pope, in his offical capacity as Pope, ever denied or taught against the revealed truths of the faith, like Marty&Cal did.
ReplyDeleteCompare scotju’s prejudicial, unsubstantiated characterization of Calvin with that of a learned historian:
ReplyDeleteHe felt called to spend his time in study and literary labors. What he sought was not to become one of the leaders of the Reformation, but rather to settle in a calm environment where he could study Scripture and write about his faith. Shortly before arriving at Basel, he had written a short treatise on the state of the souls of the dead before the resurrection. What he now hoped to do was to write other such treatises, to help clarify the faith of the church in those confused times.
…
Until then, most Protestant literature, drawn from the urgency of polemics, had dealt exclusively with the points at issue, and had said little regarding other basic doctrines such as the Trinity, the incarnation, and so on. Thus, he proposed to fill this vacuum with a short manual that he called the Institutes of the Christian Religion.
…
Calvin had no intention of following the active lifestyle of the many Protestants who, in various parts of Europe, had become leaders of the Reformation. Although he respected and admired them, he was convinced that his gifts were not those of the pastor or leader, but rather those of the scholarly and author…he decided to settle in Strasbourg, where the Protestant cause was victorious, and where there was a theological and literary activity that offered the proper milieu for the work he proposed to do.
…
Calvin arrived at Geneva in 1536 with the firm intention of stopping there for no more than a day, and then continuing his journey to Strasbourg. But someone told Farel that the author of Institutes was in town, and the result was an unforgettable interview that Calvin himself later recorded. Farel, who ‘burned with a marvelous zeal for the advancement of the gospel,’ presented Calvin with several reasons why his presence was needed in Geneva…But he refused to heed Farel’s plea, telling him that he had planned certain studies…
Although at first Calvin agreed to no more than to lend his aid to the Protestant leaders of the city, particularly Farel, soon his theological insight, his legal training, and his reforming zeal made him the central figure in the religious life of the city… (Justo Gonzáles, The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day [New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1985], 63-65).
Scotju wrote: and no Pope, in his offical capacity as Pope, ever denied or taught against the revealed truths of the faith, like Marty&Cal did.
ReplyDeleteThis just proves that much work still needs to be done.
Zephyrinus (198-217) and Callistus (217-222) condoned Patripassianism.
Pope Zosimus forcefully supported Pelagianism.
Pope Pius XII completely upended the heretofore sacred teaching of the church with regard to sexual intercourse in the “sterile period”. When Pius invented the “rhythm method” in 1951, he “taught against the revealed truths of the faith” which had been followed for 1500 years.
Those are just the few that come to mind, but I’m sure many more could be found with a little research.
Peace.
Well, Matty, so what if Johnny C had his scholarly side? Like many modern day intellectals, he had an overwhelming desire to shape the world in his own image. His efforts turned Geneva into the Western World first totalitarian state. The spy system he set up in Geneva was just like the one the Commnists, Fascists and the Nazis had in their countries. As for my remarks being "unsubstantiated", Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" mentions Cal's Geneva as being totalitarian state. But even without a "learned historian" it's painflly obvisious to anyone that a person like Calvin who wanted to dictate clothing styles, names for children, and to spy on the most inimate moments of a families life, had more than a few screws loose in his head.
ReplyDeleteConnie, you don't know what you are talking about. I did a brief search on all the popes you mentioned and guess what? I was right and you were wrong! The actual historical record shows that all these Popes upheld orthodoxy in their offical capacity as popes. Case in point. Zosimus never held the Pelagian heresy. The actual record shows that he never made up his mind on it until he consulted with the African bishops. Once he did so, he condemned it. The online Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope Zosimus has the whole story. Your other citations were just as error ridden. But I will give yo credit were credit is due. "Much work still has to be done". So try again and get it right, perhaps.
ReplyDeletescotju writes:
ReplyDeleteWell, Matty, so what if Johnny C had his scholarly side?
Well, Scotty, I guess you didn't read the quotation I provided. It refutes the idea that Calvin was naturally authoritative and desiring to control agendas. He was exceptionally reluctant to become engaged in public administration.
So it wasn't just a "side" of Calvin. It was the kind of life he desired most deeply.
I'm also not sure how you are prepared to deal with Calvin's humanism.
Btw. Hoffer is not exactly what we'd call an historian. Why should I take your reference seriously? Why should I trust that it supports your characterization of Calvin? You already demonstrated your inability to distinguish good scholarship from poor scholarship in the Wycliffe thread, so it would be doubly unreasonable to trust you're making an accurate statement here.
His efforts turned Geneva into the Western World first totalitarian state.
Where's the evidence? And, no, popular Catholic apologetic articles don't count.
But even without a "learned historian" it's painflly obvisious to anyone that a person like Calvin who wanted to dictate clothing styles, names for children, and to spy on the most inimate moments of a families life, had more than a few screws loose in his head.
And it's "painfully obvious" that even if we accept your description of Calvin, all this amounts to nothing more than your garden variety genetic fallacy.
It's also an excellent red herring. We weren't discussing Calvin and Luther. That you need to change the subject to the Reformers is a tacit admission that you can't defend the behavior of your Popes.
Scotju, you know better than to point out anything negative about Calvin over on this blog. He is "saint!"
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wants to read a bit about Calvin and his antics in Geneva you can do so at my blog..
http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/search?q=calvin&updated-max=2009-11-09T11%3A46%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=20
Here is just an excerpt,
"...an opposing group called the Libertines attempted to subvert Calvin's regime and brought forth a Spanish scholar, Michael Servetus, to challenge Calvin. Although Servetus was also certainly a heretic, Calvin's minions squashed his challenge and in 1553 Servetus was murdered and burned at the stake. Some reports say that Calvin used green wood on the fire to make his death more agonizing. Servetus however was not the first victim of Calvin and his minions who was judged and condemned to death. Many people focus on the Servetus affair forgetting about poor Jacques Gruet who was brutally tortured and murdered for writing a letter criticizing Calvin. Most Calvinists do their best to ignore this event of 1547. Gruet was brutally tortured for a month, after which he was beheaded! That was not enough for Calvin's vengeful tastes, so he then turned to punish Gruet's family, which he had thrown into the street where they watched their home get torched and burned to the ground. They were then sent into exile. The power hungry Calvin was far worse than the “evil” papacy he had rejected. Within five years at least 58 people were murdered by the hand of Calvin and his henchmen, and many more driven out of the city for opposing him. Once the Libertines were finally driven out of Geneva in 1555, one of Calvin's henchmen Theodore Beza said, “It is said that the devil departed with the fugitives.” Likewise others who opposed them were labeled to be “arms of the devil.”
Matthew Bellisario writes:
ReplyDeleteScotju, you know better than to point out anything negative about Calvin over on this blog. He is "saint!"
Do I think he's a saint? No. Do I think it's inappropriate to say "anything negative" about Calvin? No.
I rejected unsubstantiated historical assertions that, as they stand, only amount to slander illogically designed to dismiss the rest of Calvin's theological system.
So go ahead and say whatever substantiated negative things you'd like about the life and character of Calvin, as long as it's relevant to the thread, it isn't used to discredit his theological claims via a genetic fallacy, and it isn't used as a substitute for explaining and defending the poor behavior of various Popes throughout history.
Matt B, I know ol'Jean C is a "saint" to these folks, but I have this 'compulsion' that forces me to tell the truth about this chap!
ReplyDelete