Pervasive 'non-campaign' fractured rules of secrecy (Greeley) - Page 2

**buffalo** · #16 Apr 22, '05, 9:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by toppro77

Lets throw a hypothetical question out here. Lets suppose for a minute that the Heirarchy of the church was infiltrated by the Masons, who detest the Catholic Faith with a passion. As a matter of fact, if we read some of their own documents, we will see the in them the plot to destroy the church from within.

Now for the Hypothetical question. If the majority of the Cardinals were all Masons, or affiliated with the Masons in some way, such as being their cronies, and these were the men involved in choosing the next pope, could we say that the Holy Ghost was guiding them, if they had pre determined who they wanted as pope from their own ranks? If the Masonic Cardinals out numbered the good Cardinals, then there would be no way to have a good pope elected would there?

Comments please

No! They would not cooperate with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

jlw · #17 Apr 22, '05, 9:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by cursillo255

"Bad popes" may have been personally defecient and perhaps even morally corrupt, but they did not teach error. (doctrinally or ex cathedra). So, who's to say whether or not the Holy Spirit did or did not "pick" all the Popes ?? Unitl proven otherwise, - I will just assume the Holy Spirit fullfilled his role. It's called Faith.

Great post.

marcadam · #18 Apr 22, '05, 9:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

No! They would not cooperate with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

But the church would be nonetheless protected from error. "You are Peter, and upon this Rock I build my Chruch, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

**buffalo** · #19 Apr 22, '05, 9:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcadam

But the church would be nonetheless protected from error. "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against you."

Correct.

**Della** · #20 Apr 22, '05, 9:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by OriginalJS

I think St. Augustine taught that the most effective teaching was by example. If that is true, some Popes certainly taught error (e.g. John XII, Stephen VII and Alexander VI.)

True, but teaching by example is not protected by the charism of infallibility. If that were the case both St. Peter and St. Paul would have failed there, which would mean that they too managed to negate this vital charism. But the fact is they didn't and neither did any pope because infallibility does not extend to the actions or casual words of the popes but only in his formal teaching office.

Faustina · #21 Apr 22, '05, 9:57 am

This is what I find so ironic about statements of Cardinal Ratzinger (then)/ Pope Benedict XVI (now) Vatican II occurred in the mid 60's, right? Well Ratzinger was probably considered a progressive during those times. The issues that were considered progressive then are now consider conservative now.
There is also the possibility that the Grace of God has turned him away from "progressive" thought, once he saw how much damage it can and has done.

(Sarcasam on)

Is it possible that God could change us?

(Sarcasam off)

marcadam · #22 Apr 22, '05, 9:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Correct.

Sorry, I corrected my quote after you quoted it.

**Church Militant** · #23 Apr 22, '05, 9:58 am

I'm glad he writes his books, because his articles are really poor. I think he's a writer with nothing to say, and likes to skate along th edge of his liberalism. Like some other American Catholics in this country, he seems to think that we might know better how to run the church (and the world, to hear some folks talk...). I take his remarks with much salt and amazingly avoid him causing me high blood pressure.
Pax vobiscum,

aimee · #24 Apr 22, '05, 10:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlw

My mouth is just agape. I seriously have to collect myself for a minute before responding this....

OK....Just an absolutly rediculous fellow. That's as charible as I can be.

The Holy Spirit works. He wills. He allows. He is NEVER in error.

Men can be.

How does he continue to get by with this stuff

stellina · #25 Apr 22, '05, 10:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheum_x

He didn't say that the Holy Spirit didn't pick the Pope. He was stating that we should not be so quick to claim the Holy Spirit's backing for our actions.

He even refers to Ratzinger comments on the subject -- and not out of context, as I have read the quotation that Greeley refers to -- to similar effect.

Let history be the judge of whether it was the Holy Spirit, not our own enthusiasm.

He said that the Holy Spirit blows whither it will, a not-so subtle way of saying that the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Blessed trinity, acts at random and therefore could very well have no interest in guiding the selection of the supreme pontiff of the Church. Wrong. If he is indeed stating, as you say, that we shouldn't claim the Holy Spirit's backing for our actions particularly when they are not agreeable to certain people (like himself) or certain popular sentiments, then he is even more wrong.

For that matter, if by your last comment you're implying that our enthusiasm over the election of the Holy Father is affecting our judgement of what we know to be true and is therefore somehow mistaken, then you're wrong too.

OriginalJS · #26 Apr 22, '05, 10:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Della

True, but teaching by example is not protected by the charism of infallibility. If that were the case both St. Peter and St. Paul would have failed there, which would mean that they too managed to negate this vital charism. But the fact is they didn't and neither did any pope because infallibility does not extend to the actions or casual words of the popes but only in his formal teaching office.

I think that is correct. I wasn't writing about infallibility.

Brad · #27 Apr 22, '05, 11:11 am

The Catechism says this:

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" (CD 2).

Are we to believe that someone can be divinely instituted as Pope without being picked by God? Come on folks. You've got to be smarter than Greeley and keep on your armour of Christ.

swampfox · #28 Apr 22, '05, 11:22 am

I understand Greeley's twin leprechaun told him so. What a small "man"--

Brad · #29 Apr 22, '05, 11:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcadam

A selective quote of a selective quote... to be fair, Greeley did not say what the title of this post implies.

Greeley said this:

As to the Holy Spirit -- at the risk of being told by hate mail that I do not deserve to be a priest -- I submit that to claim God's spirit for one's own cause comes dangerously close to idolatry. The spirit blows whither he will. No one can claim his patronage.

You are right. He did not literally say the "Holy Spirit did not pick this Pope." But, at minimum, he is saying that we don't know if the Holy Spirit picked this Pope, leaving some of the faithful to imply that the Holy Spirit did not select this Pope.

Why is it, that we are forced in the position of being "fair" and only allowing literal statements in our determination of intentions of the unquestionably heterodox when it is these same individuals that accuse us of being "literalists" when we want to assume the original author's intentions by actually reading what they wrote? (For example, the Vatican II documents)

Let's just say I don't think Greeley would be writing as he is if one of his "favorites" was selected (which, of course, I don't believe would happen).

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcadam

. What he said was a selective quote of Ratzinger himself, that the Holy Spirit doesn't select any popes, which is true. .

I would like to see the original quote because it sounds like he is contradicting the Catechism. Perhaps he meant that the Holy Spirit doesn't physically do the selection?

Brad · #30 Apr 22, '05, 11:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

Greeley said this:

As to the Holy Spirit -- at the risk of being told by hate mail that I do not deserve to be a priest -- I submit that to claim God's spirit for one's own cause comes dangerously close to idolatry. The spirit blows whither he will. No one can claim his patronage.

You are right. He did not literally say the "Holy Spirit did not pick this Pope." But, at minimum, he is saying that we don't know if the Holy Spirit picked this Pope, leaving some of the faithful to imply that the Holy Spirit did not select this Pope.

Why is it, that we are forced in the position of being "fair" and only allowing literal statements in our determination of intentions of the unquestionably heterodox when it is these same individuals that accuse us of being "literalists" when we want to assume the original author's intentions by actually reading what they wrote? (For example, the Vatican II documents)

Let's just say I don't think Greeley would be writing as he is if one of his "favorites" was selected (which, of course, I don't believe would happen).

I would like to see the original quote because it sounds like he is contradicting the Catechism. Perhaps he meant that the Holy Spirit doesn't physically do the selection?

I respectively pose the same questions to CA administration now that they have changed the title of the thread.