In a long interview published on December 30th in the German weekly Die Zeit, Cardinal Ludwig Müller, Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith, raised a question of crucial relevance today. When the interviewer asked the Prefect what he thought of those Catholics who attack the Pope defining him “a heretic”, he replied: “Not only because of my office, but from personal conviction, I must disagree. A heretic in the theological definition, is a Catholic who denies obstinately a revealed truth proposed by the Church that they are obliged to believe. It’s another thing when those who are officially charged to teach the faith express themselves in a somewhat inappropriate, misleading or vague way. The teachings of the Pope and bishops are not above the Word of God, but serve it. (…) Moreover, papal pronouncements have a different binding nature – ranging from a definitive decision pronounced ex-cathedra to a homily which is used rather for spiritual analysis.”
47 comments:
The good cardinal shouldn't tell us what heresy is, he should be talking to Francis.
The point of the article to which you linked was to show that formal heresy, which is what Cardinal Muller is discussing, is an ecclesiological designation made after a charge and inquiry. The things that the pope has said and done have not been subjected to a charge and inquiry and so they cannot be formally designated as heresy, with its accompanying ecclesiological censures.
The article goes on to explain that that does not make them less problematic. And the article bases this point on the recent example of the pope's video wherein he promotes syncretism and religious indifference. Those things are heresies that could subject him to a formal charge of heresy, but that has not been done. Still we can recognize the content of the video as heresy and scandalous is attempting to pass off its heretical content insofar as it places souls in danger.
So the main point of the article is to show that it up to the ecclesiological authorities to bring a formal charge of heresy. (But that does not prevent the faithful from taking note of the heresy being espoused by the pope, pointing out the erroneous contents, and arguing that they are incongruous with the faith. In fact, people have a duty to do this, especially priests.
Cardinal Mueller knows exactly who he is dealing with in Francis, he is trying to hold back a formal split in the Church. We all know what Francis is.
Roberto Mattei accepts this invisible-visible distinction made by the contemporary magisterium. It is not irrational for him.It is not heretical. Since he uses this same reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/roberto-mattei-accepts-this-invisible.html
Isn't this tantamount admission that the Pope is guilty -at a minimum- of infelicitous turns of expression if not goofs in his off the cuff remarks or homilies? If you distinguish formal heresy from poorly worded or muddled thinking, that's not much of a slam against critics.
It's basically "well, he's not THAT bad, but I get what your are saying about this, that, and that other interview, homily, remark, and action that utterly confounds, confuses, and bewilders the faithful (as well as the anti-Catholic world).
When enemies AND allies are united in bewilderment and erudite experts can argue for diametrically opposite conclusions based on the same quote or act, there's a bit of a problem. It might not be formal heresy but it's not good and it's not the fault of meanspirited laity in America.
In the video being referenced, the pope said, "Many think differently, feel differently, seeking God or meeting God in different ways. In this range of religions, there is only one certainty we have for all: we are all children of God."
This statement is incorrect according to Catholic teaching in three principle ways. First, we are not all children of God. Second, that false statement is not the "only one certainty" that we have. Third, not all religions lead to meeting God as all other religions involve the worship and submission to demons.
In light of that, the pope's statement is heresy. That does not make the pope a formal heretic. But it does mean that Catholics of good will, especially priests, should make known the actual Catholic teaching as a curative to the pope's espousal of error.
Tonight somebody's life may change like they never imagined. Somebody (maybe me) will have more money than they ever dreamed of. (Do you have a Powerball ticket?)
If a devout, faithful Catholic buys a ticket, then goes to Mass and prays to win the money...promises to buy his church a Communion rail, does this person have a better chance of winning than a...Muslim or a Protestant?
Just waiting for the Holy Ghost to send us a new Pope.
Maybe it is a veiled warning that there could be an official charge of heresy? U read recently that Cardinal Muller said the Pope has no theology and that he often has to "tidy up" what the Pope says. Certainly, some of the things I have read now attributed to Pope Francis and also in his encyclicals make the old joke "Is the Pope Catholic?" no longer funny.
The following I read today. When has there ever needed to be such posts before? When has a Pope ever had to explain what he means by "Who am I to judge?"? This explanation means the Pope is aware of the fallout of his papacy and so it is important that Catholics keep pointing out where he is wrong, not least for the sake of the Pope soul. Perhaps Fr Rutler thinks the same:
"Commentary from Fr. George Rutler:
Youths may tread wrong paths unadvisedly on occasion, for such is the indiscretion of nascent years, but they want their mothers to be mature and not adolescent. Mother Church appears ridiculous as Adolescent Church, as in the case of the Holy See lamenting David Bowie. The insatiable desire for approval by pop culture is beneath the dignity of the Church as the Mother of Nations."
Gob, even you should know that it depends on God's will ... but then it has been pointed out a number of times that you are lamentably ill informed about the Faith. When it comes to lottery tickets, I have a lurking suspicion that a certain amount of rigging goes on ... therefore, it may depend on whether it is a Muslim or a Protestant in charge of spinning the wheel or the dice - or however they do it there.
Re: Marc's comment, with which I agree completely. Reminder/Notice: "I am the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have NO other God's before me." Whether you understand "before" to mean "above" or "in my presence" does not matter. The message is clear and unambiguous. There is one God; all other gods are false and lead nowhere, meaning that all other religions are false and, at best, can only serve to create some vague awareness in their followers of a Creator somewhere. It is this "sense" upon which Catholicism bases its view that other religions can lead to the truth, which is based upon Romans 1 and upon Christ's statement that, "other sheep I have, and not of this fold." This in no way legitimizes these other "gods."
Gene, you are right, and I think that Psalm 95 makes this very clear:
For the Lord is great, and exceedingly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.
Not only are all other "gods" false, they are devils. And the people who pray to the false "gods" pray to devils.
Pope Francis is probably not a heretic, and even if he were he knows that he has not the competence to change doctrine. As Jesuits go, he is firmly on the orthodox wing. However, like a lot of prelates formed after V2 he likes the anodyne and ambiguous turn of phrase because it is not likely to upset anyone.
So the apparent syncretism of the 'Pope video' is not necessarily what he thinks but rather how he wishes to project himself. I think he was a bad choice for the papacy but only history can judge him as a disaster. Paul VI, however, has had the judgement of history; the worst pope in half a millennium if judged by his performance and his legacy. It doesn't mean he was a bad man; just a bad pope.
At worst Pope Francis could possibly be a material heretic (There is absolutely no way I'd trust anyone formed in the late 50's-early 60's to have received the Faith properly, let alone a Jesuit)
The good cardinal here is absolutely correct formal heresy can only be charged by the proper authorities. (We're not vigilanties, we can't take matters in our own hands).
Yet to point out errors is not necessarily judging and convicting the pope. The one thing we can not do is read the state of the pope's soul, or his intention, we do not know that....hence why it's proper to say idea x is heretical, or this can be read as promoting y, but would not be to say Pope Francis is is a formal heretic, that we can't do.
Psalm 108:8. Subito!
"Many think differently, feel differently, seeking God or meeting God in different ways. In this range of religions, there is only one certainty we have for all: we are all children of God."
This is Catholic teaching. We are all children of God. CCC 355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
"In this range of religions, there is only one certainty we have for all; we are all children of God" is also correct. Pope Francis is not saying we have no other certainties. He is not excluding the certainty we have of Jesus being Incarnate, the Eucharist being His Bod and Blood, etc. He was speaking about the 'range of religions."
The Pope did not say "all religions lead to God."
None of this is heresy - it is all Catholic teaching.
The Pope has been quoted as saying, on several occasions, that all religions lead to the same God. That is heresy, bad theology, Biblically false, and pure nonsense. He has said, on numerous occasions , that Christianity and Islam worship the same God. That is complete nonsense, a false understanding of both Christianity and Islam, and careless, dangerous prattle.
Gene, the following link will help you to form your opinions without cynicism, rancor or protestant-like antipathy towards the Holy Father. This is the authentic way to critique a papal message where we may legitimately question or disagree with what is said:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/christians-muslims-and-the-one-god
My problems with the Pope are not protestant-like. They are mirrored by many devout Catholics who have expressed the same sentiments. The Pope spouts bad theology and creates doubt and confusion regarding doctrine. I do not need help "forming my opinions," which have been formed by nine years of college and graduate study, five of them in major theological centers under well-respected scholars...I know my theological/doctrinal ducks. As for being angry, of course I am...anybody with half a brain should be enraged by what is going on in the Christian world in general and in the Catholic Church in particular. This crap being spouted by various religious pundits trying to sort out the relationship of the Christian God to other Gods is wasted print. These other Gods are not Trinitarian, they do not recognize Christ as the son of God/Messiah. Ergo, they are not the same God. A brief review of your logic course should make that clear, not to mention a quick review of Scripture. Please list for me the ways in which the Hindu or Buddhist "gods" are "like" the Christian God. Where on earth does anyone get the idea that the Islamic god, hatched out of Mohammed's you-know-what, is like the Christian God...because some Mullah or relativist academics say so. Please. I think these people have completely lost their minds. This Pope's obsession with making the world one big encounter group where everyone is "cool, dude" is dangerous.
Gene, regarding Islam, you are wrong - again.
“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” - Lumen Gentium 16
“Then [we refer] to the adorers of God according to the conception of monotheism, the Muslim religion especially, deserving of our admiration for all that is true and good in their worship of God.” Pope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam, 107
“As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. In our daily lives we strive to put into practice God’s will according to the teaching of our respective Scriptures. We believe that God transcends our thoughts and our universe and that his loving presence accompanies us throughout each day. In prayer, we place ourselves in the presence of God to offer him our worship and thanksgiving, to ask forgiveness for our faults, and to seek his help and blessing." Saint Pope John Paul II, Address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985
“I close my greeting to you with the words of one of my predecessors, Pope Gregory VII who in 1076 wrote to Al-Nasir, the Muslim Ruler of Bijaya, present day Algeria: ‘Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’ Saint Pope John Paul II, Message to the faithful of Islam at the end of the month of Ramadan, April 3, 1991
"With these sentiments, I once again express my gratitude for this auspicious occasion to meet you during my visit to Cameroon. I thank Almighty God for the blessings he has bestowed upon you and your fellow citizens, and I pray that the links that bind Christians and Muslims in their profound reverence for the one God will continue to grow stronger, so that they will reflect more clearly the wisdom of the Almighty, who enlightens the hearts of all mankind." Pope Benedict XVI, address to the representatives of the Muslim community of Cameroon, Yaoundé, March 19, 2009
Etc Etc Etc
Once again, I am glad to stand with the teaching of the Church. I would encourage you to do the same.
Fr. Kavanaugh, can you share any actual teachings of the Church that support your position vis-a-vis Islam?
Lumen Gentium is not an infallible teaching. Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God.
Just to point out, there are no 'Buddhist gods'.
Gene - You are wrong, again.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, OP, at Catholic Answers - "Granted, Muslims do not believe in the Trinity as we do. Nor do Jews. Yet we all believe in a Supreme Being who created and governs the universe. When St. Paul learned that the Greeks worshipped an unknown god (Acts 17:23), he identified that god as our God. Muslims worship the one God to the degree that they know him—which in our view, is a very limited knowledge."
You and others can continue your "Vatican Two is not authoritative" cant until the cows come home. In that you will also be wrong, continually. I'm not going to argue the point.
Vatican Two taught nothing new as evidenced by the quote from Pope Gregory VII in 1076, 886 years before the opening of Vat 2: "You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world."
Once again, I am glad to stand with the teaching of the Church. I would encourage you to do the same.
Gene:
In a way both you and Father Kavanaugh have a point and are right.
You have a point but not because Muslims are not Trinitarian. Nor are Jews, but unless I have seriously misunderstood, you would not deny that Jews and Christians worship the same God (of course one can always argue that there are important distinctions between Jews and Muslims as the article in the link given by Father McDonald does). No, your stronger point, surely, is Pope Benedict’s point in his Regensburg speech in 2006, something we have discussed before—in the medieval dispute between the intellectualists (God as a God of Reason) and the voluntarists (God as God of Will unbound by constraints of reason), the intellectualists captured the Christian tradition but the result was the opposite in the Islamic tradition (indeed some scholars think we got the terms of the debate, and much else besides, from Islam, although the conundrum involved goes back to Plato’s Euthyphro).
But does this mean we do not worship the same God, or does it mean, rather, that we understand Him in different ways? Let’s take an analogy. I assume that you and I both accept that God is a God of Reason. But we have rather different conceptions of what this means. Thus the God (and the Christ) I worship is much less tolerant of violence than yours (and your “theologic”) appears to be. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.
And yet we worship the same God, do we not? This is why Father Kavanaugh has a point too, and indeed why he appears to have the better point because his point does seem to be consistent with the teaching of the Church. Thus in addition to Lumen Gentium he could also have adduced the following statement of the Church in Nostra Aetate Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions:
“3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. “
The statement that Muslims and Christians worship the same God reflects a complete misunderstanding of the NT and of Scripture in general. If you read some of the history of the founding of Islam, you will see that it is a faux creation of Mohammed's, based upon his gleaning of Biblical themes and a hodge podge of his own megalomanic ramblings. No non-Trinitarian religion may be said to be anything like Christianity...Paul in Acts and in his letters, not to mention the letters of John, Jude,s and others makes it abundantly clear that the Christian faith is unique, superior, and ascendant over all other religions. ALL other gods are false. Now, the Church has, over time, attempted to woo other religions by diminishing the differences among them. but this is not Biblical. One of the major weaknesses of Catholic theology is that it has always made too much of man's capacity for getting to God from an understanding of man and of man's capacity for a rationalistic understanding of revelation. It is the strongest point of Luther and Calvin in their arguments with the Church. I believe they have something to teach the Church and we should listen.
Anyway, the book of Acts is not about the likenesses of other religions to Christianity. To lift 17:23 out of context as an argument for that is ludicrous. Read the whole book.
Anon 2, the God I worship is no more tolerant of violence than your's. Christ counsels against violence (although he never explicitly excludes it). Violence is a sin, in most cases, just as any other sin is a sin. It is the understanding of sin on which you and I differ. In a sinful and fallen world, I believe that violence is sometimes justified and necessary to preserve the Faith and the values that we hold dear and that God has given us. The Church also believes and teaches this.
Now, if all religions lead to the same God, why be Catholic...or Christian? Why all the hoopla about the relationship of the Church to protestantism? All this extra ecclesium nulla salus is pure nonsense. Why don't we all just go experiment with Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, pantheism, witchcraft, or dog worship? The logic of that idea certainly leads to that conclusion. Buddhism teaches that the Buddha is within us...we are gods, ultimately. Hey, that's cool. Pass the bong...
This is called idolatry and is forbidden by the first commandment. Why has the Catholic Church spent so much time recently trying to diminish the uniqueness of Christianity...trying to water down the Gospel message?
Gene, Buddhism doesn't teach that. Buddhism teaches that the goal of life is to attain nirvana by renouncing attachment to the material world. Buddhists aren't pantheists. Buddhism is agnostic—the existence of a god is irrelevant to the goal of renouncing the world; the closest concept to a god is a bodhistiva, which is more like a saint than a god. You're confusing Hinduism (specifically Vedanta) with Buddhism.
I fail to see how rejecting the trappings of the world constitutes idolatry... living in the world but not being of it...
Detachment for the sake of detachment, though, is Buddhism's false god!
And before anyone responds that it doesn't matter what Buddhism teaches—it does, as long as other religions are going to be discussed here.
If a commenter came here and began talking about how Catholics were Mary worshippers and cannibals, we'd take nothing they said seriously. Likewise, it's hard to take commenters seriously if they get basic beliefs of Buddhism, Hinduism, or (I've seen it here before) Eastern Orthodoxy wrong.
This is the internet—available for anyone with a computer and network connection to see.
Detachment for the sake of detachment, though, is Buddhism's false god!
Too bad Buddhism doesn't teach 'detachment for the sake of detachment'.
(Please backup your statement with either Sanskrit or Pali sources. It shouldn't be hard. There's a huge corpus going back thousands of years. I assume you're more than familiar with that corpus of works, since you're an expert on Indian religious history. If I, a 21 year old, can cite them, you, a 60+ year old Catholic priest, can too.)
Have you left the Greek's for Budha? Still searching? This can be good but really tiresome. Catholics and I include the east, schismatic and not, are to be detached for the sake of the kingdom, not exploiting the material for a higher cause. The detachment though isn't the idol nor is the embracing of it to make us feel good about ourselves.
Flavius, Sheldon Kopp wrote a book called, "If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him." His point is that WE are the Buddha. He says, "if you have a god or a hero, you have diminished yourself in some way." Buddhism may not have a "god" in the philosophical/religious sense, but the teachings are tantamount to saying that all of us are "god." That is my point. Zen, of course, with which I have much experience, is basically a very useful and simple way to live and understand everyday life. But, it is still we who are the focus of the spiritual renewal that takes place. It is the ultimate immanence.
Have you left the Greek's for Budha? Still searching? This can be good but really tiresome.
So... because I know what I'm talking about, that must mean I'm a Buddhist? Like... I can't have studied Buddhism because of a college class or because I was interested in learning about it?
Are you fecking kidding me?
Oh, I see, religion is a buffet of academic pursuit for you until you find the most delicious course! It makes sense now!
Oh, I see, religion is a buffet of academic pursuit for you until you find the most delicious course! It makes sense now!
Whatever. That's not what I mean and you know it.
____________________________________________________
A potato would be more authoritative than Kopp, and Zen is about as Buddhist as Katharine Schori is Christian. (Granted, I'm suspicious about all forms of Mahayana, and I think Theravada is the closest to 'historical' Buddhism as one can get.)
Not that any of that matters. Buddhism lacks Christ, and on that basis alone is irrelevant.
Actually, Flavius, I thought Kopp was ok...certainly better than Kapleau and some others. There are lots of problems with the Western interpretation of Buddhism, especially Zen. If you have not read Shunryu Suzuki's "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind," do so. Good stuff.
BTW, Suzuki was a practicing Zen monk from Japan who moved to California. Don't confuse him with D.T. Suzuki, who was an academic (however, his book, "Zen and Japanese Culture," is a marvelous read. The two-hundred pages or so on Japanese swordsmanship are alone worth the price of the book, even if you are not a martial artist.) If you come to understand Zen mind, it is a key element in any physical undertaking, whether martial arts, shooting, sports, dance, or running and cycling.
Gene:
Are you now saying that you would only accept the use of violence in those limited circumstances where its use is approved in Church teaching? If so, I am delighted because it means that you are walking back some of your previous positions (for example, your preferred approach in response to 9/11 if I recall correctly--nuking every major city in the Islamic Middle East).
As for extra ecclesiam etc., isn’t the real issue the relationship we have with God? The nature and quality of that relationship differs among the religions.
Anon 2, ideally yes...I would only accept the use of violence in the limited circumstances approved by the Church. However, there is some lee way for interpretation. I view Islam as the enemy of Christianity and Western culture. I have no qualms regarding violence against them. After all, the Church, herself, has done it. Even if most of the Crusades deteriorated into a disaster of pillage and plunder in totally uninvolved countries and ultimately failed (the Third showed promise until Richard had to go home), the Church's awareness that sometimes we have to take up arms for the faith is sound. Violence should never be a first choice.
Re: relationship to God. Those in false religions cannot, by definition, have a proper relationship with God.
The "Greek's"? Possessive form? Why?
Because, Anonymous, when Fr. needs to make absurd accusations, he has a habit of making mistakes.
Interestingly, I showed screenshots of this exchange (with the caption 'Well. Whatever that means.') to a couple of people on Facebook. One response was 'WTF is he talking about?'.
Apparently, this responder knows someone who sent Fr. M an angry letter when he tried to eliminate St.Jo's panhandler 'problem'. I've been told the letter is quite worth reading.
I wrote a letter in the bullet many years ago asking parishioners not to give money to panhandlers. It was not an angry letter and later Sister Elizabeth the founder of Daybreak and street people friendly supported what I wrote with a series of suggestions in the bulletin. She said to give money to those who know how to work with the poor and address their actual needs and not their addictive needs. Panhandlers know who the suckers are and no how to manipulate them. The elderly are prone to be manipulated as anyone with who works with the elderly knows, they can be gullible and often can lose their savings to unscrupulous people, poor or not!
When you have elderly people and children nearby, one has to be cautious about encouraging street people or panhandlers from frequenting our churches, and entering the people to ask people in the pew for money which happens frequently at St. Joseph. Some of these people are addicted to hard drugs and alcohol and can become violent. Some are sex offenders.
Often times people give panhandlers money because it makes them feel good, despite the fact that the money given goes to support an addiction thus causing more harm than good.
We help the poor appropriately not to make us feel good but to authentically help them. FAV what is your experience and philosophy about helping the poor and how have you done so?
So FAV, you are in favor of parishioners giving money to panhandlers for them to support their addictive problems, maybe spend it on a prostitute or buy crack or a bottle of booze?
I agree that panhandlers do not need to be hanging around outside the Church or anywhere else. There are ample programs and centers for them, and we need to re-open the institutions so that some of the truly disturbed can be gotten off the streets. These people need to be properly cared for and supported, not re-inforced in their condition by rewarding them.
I said 'this responder knows someone who sent Fr.M an angry letter. Maybe I need to be writing in Latin or French.
Anyway, as I am just a step above homeless, there's not much I can do, other than being an ear for those who need one.
Thanks to the Catholics and Methodists and Salvation Army and others of goodwill there is no reason for a street person to miss breakfast, lunch or supper and snacks to boot. Daybreak and others try to address systemic change in the person so they can be independent. Health services, showers, washing machines, etc are available. I send my money to Daybreak and FAM more qualified than me to address real needs. I have an emergency fund to help parishioners over a jump and we have the St. Vincent de Paul Society for this as well.
Flavius, email me.
Post a Comment