"the Pope's Beliefs"

[Romans1513]

Hi,
This comes from my thread on "Lutherans, the Pope, and the AntiChrist" or something like that over on Open Mic.

My friend sent me this, which I found is what someone said in a Facebook group discussion:
"And here's the trouble from their side... no pope can recant a previous pope's teaching. They are forced to sign and agree to these beliefs before they can even become pope. The current pope, Benedict w/e, did not agree with these papal claims. He actually stood more towards Lutheran theology. But Pope John Paul II (as all Pope's had to) forced him and all Cardinals, Bishops, etc. to confess these beliefs about the papacy. And now that he's pope he can't recant anything a previous pope administered. Therein lies the ultimate slippery slope of making tradition equal to Scripture in authority."

Can you tell me about this? Truth, made up, out of context or blown out of proportion?

Thanks!

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
1/17 - St. Antony the Abbot

Romans1513,

There are certain teachings, called dogmas, which no Pope is able to recant (divinity of Christ, Immaculate Conception, etc.). Others, though, a Pope is able to change official opinion on; these are not dogmas and are not central to the faith.

And about Luther, what your friend refers to is a (now famous) comment Fr. Ratzinger made concerning the Constitution [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i] of Vatican II. He said that it reflected too much the theology of Teilhard de Chardin and not enough that of Martin Luther. Since his commentary on [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i] has never been published in English (to my knowledge), I can't place it within its context. Hope this helps.

Yours,
Pio Nono

[phatcatholic]

I would file this under "made up" and make a copy to put in "blown out of proportion." If he doesn't even know the number that goes after the pope's name, I doubt he is qualified at all to discuss the papacy! At any rate, there are many errors in what your friend sent to you.


[quote]"And here's the trouble from their side... no pope can recant a previous pope's teaching. They are forced to sign and agree to these beliefs before they can even become pope.[/quote]Apparently he sees something wrong with continuity in teaching, but he never actually says what that is. That said, it is true that certain individuals in the hierarchy of the Church are required to make a profession of faith. Canon 833 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law reads as follows:[list][b]Can. 833[/b] The following are personally bound to make a profession of faith, according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See:

1.° in the presence of the president or his delegate: all who, with a deliberative or a consultative vote, take part in an Ecumenical Council, a particular council, the synod of Bishops, or a diocesan synod; in the presence of the council or synod: the president himself ;

2.° in accordance with the statutes of the sacred College: those promoted to the dignity of Cardinal;

3.° in the presence of a delegate of the Apostolic See: all who are promoted to the episcopate, and all those who are equivalent to a diocesan Bishop;

4.° in the presence of the college of consultors: the diocesan Administrator;

5.° in the presence of the diocesan Bishop or his delegate: Vicars general, episcopal Vicars and judicial Vicars;

6.° in the presence of the local Ordinary or his delegate: parish priests; the rector, professors of theology and philosophy in seminaries, at the beginning of their term of office; and those who are to be promoted to the order of diaconate;

7.° in the presence of the Chancellor or, in the absence of the Chancellor, the local Ordinary, or the delegates of either: the rector of an ecclesiastical or catholic university, at the beginning of the term of office - in the presence of the rector if he is a priest, or of the local Ordinary or the delegates of either: those who in any universities teach subjects which deal with faith or morals, at the beginning of their term of office;

8.° in accordance with the constitutions: Superiors in religious institutes and clerical societies of apostolic life.
[/list]Note that nowhere does it say that a person must make this profession before he can be pope. A pope doesn't even have to be a priest, as far as I know. Also, who would bind the pope to such a thing? The pope is bound by no man but Christ (and perhaps also, the charism of infallibility that protects him from authoritatively preaching heresy).

Also, the presence of some type of document that he must sign first is made very unlikely by the simple fact that a small number of popes in the history of the Church have actually held personal beliefs that were contrary to Church teaching but they were still popes (note that, despite this, these men never taught heresy infallibly, or with the intent of binding the faithful to something as the successor of Peter and shepherd of the flock).


[quote]The current pope, Benedict w/e, did not agree with these papal claims. He actually stood more towards Lutheran theology.[/quote]The former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith--that congregation responsible for ensuring that theologians remain faithful to Church teaching--in fact did not "agree with these papal claims"?? Prove it. Note that whoever would make such a bold assertion has the entire corpus of Ratzinger's writings to contend with. However, just one document should suffice:

--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=711"]The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church[/url]

Note that this is a document issued by the CDF, of which Ratzinger was head, and it is signed first by Ratzinger himself.

to be continued.....

[phatcatholic]

[quote]But Pope John Paul II (as all Pope's had to) forced him and all Cardinals, Bishops, etc. to confess these beliefs about the papacy.[/quote]Here is the profession of faith that priests, bishops, and cardinals have to say:[list]I, N., with firm faith believe and profess everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith: namely:

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
[/list]Ratzinger would have had to profess this when he became a Cardinal. So, at least as far as the public forum is concerned, he believes in the authority and the primacy of the pope, since this would fall under "everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition." Again, I must ask, "Why is this a bad thing? It is just because [i][b]you[/b][/i] don't believe in it?" From the standpoint of the Church (or of any institution), it only makes sense to have leaders who believe in the philosophy and the purpose of the organization. Ratzinger is not the victim here. He doesn't even feel himself to be a victim, but instead "a faithful worker in the vineyard of the Lord" (to loosely quote the scripture passage he quoted when he gave his first public audience after becoming pope).


[quote]And now that he's pope he can't recant anything a previous pope administered. Therein lies the ultimate slippery slope of making tradition equal to Scripture in authority."[/quote]Where is the slippery slope? If he can't recant anything, wouldn't that mean that there was consistency? Your friend (or whoever wrote this) doesn't even seem to understand the analogy he is using to criticize the Church! A slippery slope is "A tricky precarious situation, especially one that leads gradually but inexorably to disaster" ([i]American Heritage Dictionary[/i]). Nothing of the sort is taking place here.

Furthermore, he could always recant Church teaching as far as his private thoughts as a theologian are concerned. He just can't ever teach such a thing authoritatively. Note that there is no body of secret police who keeps this from happening. It is the Spirit. It is the charism of infallibility that he has as the successor of St. Peter. If a profession of faith actually kept people from heresy like it was supposed to, then we wouldn't have any priests or rectors of seminaries or bishops who believed things contrary to the Church. But, unfortunately, some such individuals exist.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic