Pervasive 'non-campaign' fractured rules of secrecy (Greeley) - Page 4

Prometheum_x · #46 Apr 22, '05, 1:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

How do you reconcile this with the Catechism #937 posted above?

I don't see the conflict. Just because the pope enjoys those things doesn't mean thtat necessarily exercises them. The pope is prevented from teaching error, not from doing a bad job as a pastor otherwise.

Prometheum_x · #47 Apr 22, '05, 1:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

Based on this, I don't think the Holy Spirit picks evil men nor allows the Church to pick evil men but works with the Church to select a sinner that may or may not become a saint.

A divinely instituted office will have a divinely appointed office holder, just as Peter was picked by Jesus, Moses was picked by God the Father, David was picked by God the Father etc.

All who are in heaven are saints. If you are not in heaven after the judgment, then you are in hell and are thus an evil man.

However, was it God who directly picked David's successor? What about Solomon's successor, etc.?

Brad · #48 Apr 22, '05, 1:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheum_x

I don't see the conflict. Just because the pope enjoys those things doesn't mean thtat necessarily exercises them. The pope is prevented from teaching error, not from doing a bad job as a pastor otherwise.

He has supreme power; full power; immediate power. He HAS THE POWER. No matter WHAT he does, it affect souls. Just by being in the office, he excercises this power. He is in the ONLY divinely instituted office.

Brad · #49 Apr 22, '05, 1:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheum_x

All who are in heaven are saints. If you are not in heaven after the judgment, then you are in hell and are thus an evil man.

However, was it God who directly picked David's successor? What about Solomon's successor, etc.?

I don't know what to say. I guess we should change the Pope's title to Vicar of Men.

Diddi · #50 Apr 22, '05, 3:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad quoting greeley

http://www.suntimes.com/output/greel...greeley21.html
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.
[/b]

1. Since when did supporting the teachings of the Church become merely "one's own cause"? Greeley lost me there.

2. He is obviously referring to John 3:8 ("The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."), where Jesus is talking about the baptism of the Spirit -- but I do not see the connection.(?)

3. It appears that Greeley is reasoning from the premise that the Holy Spirit is NOT guiding the Catholic Church. His evidence, I presume, is that there were bad popes. It follows that he must not believe that God guided Israel because there were bad kings. It also follows, that if God didn't guide Israel and isn't guiding the Church, that maybe the God of Israel doesn't exist at all. Maybe religion is nothing but causes and politics. (We’re getting pretty worldly here.)

4. Now, IF we assume (just for arguments sake) that Greeley doesn't believe in the God of Israel, THEN why should HE care about idolatry? He probably believes the prophets of Israel made up the whole thing about idolatry anyway -- you know, for political reasons.

5. But Greeley brought up the charge of idolatry. Why? I suppose he did it to support his own cause -- you know, for political reasons.

didymus · #51 Apr 22, '05, 3:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamb100

I'm a new Catholic so hopefully someone can clear things up for me. Now that that awful statement by Greeley has been posted, we really do need to know then-Cardinal Ratzinger's exact words--what's the actual quote? I've always wondered--*did* the Holy Spirit choose the "bad Popes"?

No. Cardinals, even when they are electing a Pope, still have free will and free to ignore God's will, including the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Did the Holy Spirit choose Ratzinger? I'm from Missouri. Reading Greeley's article I was glad to see that then-Cardinal Ratzinger hadn't conducted the "non-campaign" on his own behalf. I rather suspected he'd been busy twisting arms during the interregnum leading to the short conclave.

Didymus

cathgal · #52 Apr 22, '05, 4:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by didymus

No. Cardinals, even when they are electing a Pope, still have free will and free to ignore God's will, including the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Did the Holy Spirit choose Ratzinger? I'm from Missouri. Reading Greeley's article I was glad to see that then-Cardinal Ratzinger hadn't conducted the "non-campaign" on his own behalf. I rather suspected he'd been busy twisting arms during the interregnum leading to the short conclave.

Didymus

Whether the Holy Spirit chooses or allows someone to become Pope, we will never know. Men will always have free will to ignore the Holy Spirit but ultimately, HE will have what HE wants. Didn't we see this in 1978.

Prometheum_x · #53 Apr 24, '05, 1:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

I don't know what to say. I guess we should change the Pope's title to Vicar of Men.

Even without being directly selected by God, Solomon and his descendents were heir to the the Throne of David. Even though there were evil men in the line of David, God did not renounce his covenant with David.

Since God has given his Church the authority to select the successor of Peter, we can give the Church direct responsibility for her choices. The successor of Peter is still the Vicar of Christ, even though he is chosen by men, men who may or may not be listening to the Holy Spirit.

That is the greater mystery and wonder: That God can preserve his Church from error and accomplish his will even when men ignore his Spirit.

chicago · #54 Apr 24, '05, 11:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

Are we to believe that someone can be divinely instituted as Pope without being picked by God?

I think that history certainly proves that "yes", while God may have permitted the selection of some popes, he wouldn't necessarily have chosen them himself.

I forward that perhaps your interpretation of what "divine institution" means is too overreaching. This does not necessarily indicate that God handpicked the pope. It merely means that he has established the papacy and ensured his protection of it's validity in the person who was selected. Cardinal Ratzinger's interpretation, then, is quite on the mark. And don't forget that his office was largely responsible for the catechism's doctrinal integrity.

chicago · #55 Apr 24, '05, 11:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

He is in the ONLY divinely instituted office.

There is a longstanding argument that the office of king is divinely instituited and ordained by God, also. Scripture speaks of governments being divinely institued and some would make an argument, therefore, that those in elected office are divinely ordained.

chicago · #56 Apr 24, '05, 11:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimG

I'm sure that Father Greeley knows a lot about Chicago politics. But I doubt that he knows nearly as much about the workings of the Conclave as he would like us to believe. Let's see, which Cardinals do you suppose called him to let him in on all the inside details?

I'm certain that Fr. Greeley knows an awful lot about Church politics also and how things tend to work. Most people, including most priests, who have been exposed to such will usually tell you that Church politics can be worse than anything in secular politics. Guess what, the Church is all too human and subject to such difficulties, also.

Brad · #57 Apr 25, '05, 9:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicago

There is a longstanding argument that the office of king is divinely instituited and ordained by God, also. Scripture speaks of governments being divinely institued and some would make an argument, therefore, that those in elected office are divinely ordained.

I disagree with that argument. I'd have to take a closer look at the Scripture. I agree that the Davidic Kingdom was divinely instituted and perhaps some others in the OT because God was working out His plan of salvation through the Jewish people. But I don't see how this extends to all governments, despite the fact that God wants us to respect governmental authority.

Brad · #58 Apr 25, '05, 9:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheum_x

Even without being directly selected by God, Solomon and his descendents were heir to the the Throne of David. Even though there were evil men in the line of David, God did not renounce his covenant with David.

Since God has given his Church the authority to select the successor of Peter, we can give the Church direct responsibility for her choices. The successor of Peter is still the Vicar of Christ, even though he is chosen by men, men who may or may not be listening to the Holy Spirit.

That is the greater mystery and wonder: That God can preserve his Church from error and accomplish his will even when men ignore his Spirit.

I understand your arguments. I still disagree but we can agree to disagree. Collin Donovan (EWTN head of theology said on his Friday show that it is the Holy Spirit's choice). Further, Pope Benedict XVI said in his Sunday homily that the Cardinals had to "discover the one on whom the Lord wished to confer the mission of binding and loosing". In addition to the comments of those 2 (both of who know much more than I), a vicar is a representative of someone else. Anyone who is a representative of someone else can only legally or substantially hold onto that claim if they had permission from the one represented.

Men can ignore the Holy Spirit all throughout the Church and do so all the time. I disagree that it can happen in this case. It would be akin to saying that a priest that goes through the appropriate liturgical actions and says the appropriate words for consecration, but ignores the Holy Spirit's prompting his belief in the Real Presence would actually fail in performing the consecration. That is not theologically accurate or true. I think the selection of the Pope is likewise.

John_19_59 · #59 Apr 25, '05, 9:28 am

Are we to believe that someone can be divinely instituted as Pope without being picked by God?

Well Alexander VI picked himself with the use of a lot of money.

Brad · #60 Apr 25, '05, 9:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicago

I think that history certainly proves that "yes", while God may have permitted the selection of some popes, he wouldn't necessarily have chosen them himself.

I forward that perhaps your interpretation of what "divine institution" means is too overreaching. This does not necessarily indicate that God handpicked the pope. It merely means that he has established the papacy and ensured his protection of it's validity in the person who was selected. Cardinal Ratzinger's interpretation, then, is quite on the mark. And don't forget that his office was largely responsible for the catechism's doctrinal integrity.

We don't know the mind of God. We cannot assume that any particular Pope was not selected by God if selected through proper Church procedure (not Popes that forced themselves in etc.). Simply because one thinks a Pope was "bad" doesn't mean God did not want that Pope at that time for His reasons.

One evidence of the Holy Spirit selecting the Popes has been the Church has been protected from false teaching, irregardless of the sins of the Popes - and, by the way, ALL of them sinned and God views all sin as bad as it seperates us from Him.

Cardinal Ratzinger is perhaps the best theologian on the planet. That does not mean that he is right all the time, that we didn't misunderstand or mistranslate his comments, or that he never misspeaks.