Rebuke the Pope...

[clinzey]

As I was reading through my NT a question popped into my head - who gets to rebuke the Pope on issues of faith and practice if he's out of line?

 

[kimber1]

well, it's my understanding that the Pope is protected and guided by the Holy Spirit on these issues..
so maybe the question should be, who are we to argue with the Holy Spirit?

 

[HoT-MetaL]

But the pope is not God, he is by no means perfec - we ALL mess up at some point. Some more often than others, some less.

For our church the Pastor is as submitted to his elders as his elders are to him.

Jesus and God were equal - However, Jesus STILL said Father let YOUR will be done. He submitted to God, it didnt mean that his Father was the better out of the two.

God Bless, metal.

 

[twex]

well, it's my understanding that the Pope is protected and guided by the Holy Spirit on these issues..
so maybe the question should be, who are we to argue with the Holy Spirit?

But he is protected only when teaching ex cathedra. In all other instances, he could fall into heresy, and apparently some Popes did (Honorius I. and Paschal II. come to mind).

What then? Could an ecumenical council depose a heretical Pope? Does a Pope who teaches heresy automatically excommunicate himself, thereby losing his office?

I don't think Catholic theology has provided definitive answers for these questions yet.

 

[kimber1]

But he is protected only when teaching ex cathedra

that's right, which is what i thought the OP was asking, but i could be wrong

 

[ej]

As I was reading through my NT a question popped into my head - who gets to rebuke the Pope on issues of faith and practice if he's out of line?

Hi Clinzey

This is a good question, and an important one!
I don't have an absolute answer for you, but I have a rough idea. (Anyone with better knowledge please feel free to correct me!)

If you research, you'll find that the Pope has consulted world experts in certain areas, before constructing statements - he has not simply put together rules from the top of his head. So there is minimal likelihood that he is 'out of line.' This is a very different situation to that of 500+ years ago.

The Pope is human, yes. His relative fallibility is illustrated by the fact that the information / instruction in Papal encyclicals changes on rare occasions. Use of condoms in HIV endemic countries is an example of this.

However, the Pope is a source of reference for us - and his word is ultimately the most reliable, in any matter pertaining to our faith and lifestyle.

 

[Rechtgläubig]

St. Peter was corrected by St. Paul.

Could an ecumenical council depose a heretical Pope? Does a Pope who teaches heresy automatically excommunicate himself, thereby losing his office?

I don't think Catholic theology has provided definitive answers for these questions yet.

Depends, who is allowed to call a council?

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

However, the Pope is a source of reference for us - and his word is ultimately the most reliable, in any matter pertaining to our faith and lifestyle.

The Bible is the best reference and source of truth for all true followers of the Way. Yahweh's Word is the most reliable, in all matters pertaining to our faith and lifestyle.

The Pope is just a man.

Matthew 23:8-9
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

[ej]

Yahweh's Word is the most reliable, in all matters pertaining to our faith and lifestyle.

The Pope is just a man.

You are correct

- but unfortunately the Bible doesn't cover every eventuality, nor every situation. However, I regularly come up against situations and issues which I do not understand, and the Catholic Church has never failed to provide me with an inspired answer and solution.

God bless you.

 

[beetlequeendiva]

As I was reading through my NT a question popped into my head - who gets to rebuke the Pope on issues of faith and practice if he's out of line?

As much as I do not believe in the things the Pope teaches etc, I think IF he is following the Bible then he shouldn't have issues of faith and practice, he should never be out of line, and if he is and he prays to God he should be forgiven.

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

EJ, you don't need the Catholic Church to tell you how to live your life. By reading the Bible, by spending time with Yahweh in prayer, and by experiencing life together with other followers of Yahshua HaMashiach, you will gain the wisdom and knowledge necessary to make the right decision in any given situation. Yahweh told us all the really important things we need to know in His Word. Every other choice we must make, the circumstances of which may not be specifically covered, can be based on the guidelines He set forth for us in the Bible. Also:

John 16:12-14
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The Holy Spirit, which dwells within every true believer, will guide us into all truth.


Here's a couple of things I believe those who profess to be Catholics should know:

KJV 1 Timothy 4:1
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1 Timothy 3:1-7
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

One more thing:

Acts 10:24-26
And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

 

[clinzey]

The reason I asked is because, as Rechtgläubig pointed out, Paul did rebuke Peter, and publicly too. If men are men and not gods, then we all have the potential to err in matters of faith and practice. So who gets to play Paul to the modern day Peter? Who tells the Pope, this isn't the way it should be...?

 

[twex]

First, we must keep in mind that divine revelation was not yet complete when Paul rebuked Peter, so Paul receiving revelation unknown to Peter was a real possibility. Today, this possibility doesn't exist anymore, and everyone (the Popes included) is bound to interpret the revelation and cannot add to it.

As to who could rebuke a Pope today: In theory, anyone can. A prime example of how it should work is found in the conflict between Pope John XXII. and the French theologians. When they criticised the Pope's view that departed souls would not partake in the Beatific Vision until after the bodily resurrection, the Pope didn't insist on any authority but rather admitted that he never intended his personal belief to be binding for the church. After the matter was researched, he changed his opinion.

As the dogmatisation of papal infallibility didn't (and can't) modify the nature of the charism granted to Peter's successors but only proclaimed what has always been true, the Pope can theoretically still be rebuked in the same way.

Unfortunately the proclamation of the dogma has in some Catholics instilled an undue awe for every single word uttered by the Pope (and Vatican bureaucracy in general). Heretical Popes remain a very real danger, and we must remain prepared to rebuke whoever teaches contrary to revealed truths.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Just to follow up on what Twex posted of which I agree with him. We must never ever just give a man a free ride for any reason must keep the guard up and protect the Truth.

Huggucio: Teacher of the most powerful Pope-- Innocent III.

if the pope is a heretic he would harm not only himself but the whole world, especially because simpletons and idiots would easily follow the heresy since they would believe it was not a heresy….” [Summa ad Dist. 40 c.6, MS 72 of Pembroke College, Cambridge, fol 147va: “si papa esset hereticus non sibi soli noceret sed toto mundo, presertim quia simplices et idiote facile sequerentur illam heresim cum credent non esse heresim….” my translation from Brian Tierney, “Ockham, the Conciliar Theory, and the Canonists”, Journal of the History of Ideas, XV (1954), pg. 50, fn. 35]

“But look, the pope creates a new heresy. Someone wishes to prove it is a heresy, but the pope says it is not a heresy; is not his judgment to be accepted? I believe that it is not. Also, he follows the damning heresy secretly. Yet some know this and wish to prove that the pope follows such a heresy. But he denies it. Ought he to to be agreed with? I believe not. For then indeed, in the end he is able to be acused of heresy, since that [doctrine] is proved to be heresy and the pope does not himself deny it and does not wish to give a warning or recover, but contumaciously defends his error.” [Pembroke MS 72, fol 147va: “Sed ecce, papa fingit novam heresim, aliquis vult probare illam esse heresim, papa dicit non esse heresim, est ne recipienda eius probatio? Credo quod non. Item sequitur heresim dampnatam latenter. Aliqui tamen hoc sciunt et volunt probare papam sequi talem heresim. Ille tamen negat. Debet audiri? Credo quod non. Tunc enim demum accusari potest de heresi cum constat quod illud factum sit heresis et papa non negat se illud facere et admonitus non vult resipiscere sed errorem suum contumaciter defendit

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[HoT-MetaL]

Who ministers to the minister?

The Pope is still a human, hes like you and me, he sins... He makes mistakes, and God will use the cardinals etc around him to advice him onto the right path.

God Bless, metal.

 

[Benedicta00]

As I was reading through my NT a question popped into my head - who gets to rebuke the Pope on issues of faith and practice if he's out of line?

Well, if it ever happens I will let you know, but so far in 2000 years it is yet to happen. There may have been maybe 4 “bad” popes morally themselves out of 264 but they have never taught immorality or false teaching to the Church, they were to busy committing sin I guess to teach us anything “out of line.”

 

[Borealis]

The reason I asked is because, as Rechtgläubig pointed out, Paul did rebuke Peter, and publicly too. If men are men and not gods, then we all have the potential to err in matters of faith and practice. So who gets to play Paul to the modern day Peter? Who tells the Pope, this isn't the way it should be...?

Paul was not rebuking Peter on a matter of faith and morals. Galatians 2:11-14 is the passage you're referring to. Peter went to Antioch and ate with the Gentiles. But when Jewish Christians began complaining that he was eating with 'non-Jews,' he and Barnabas pulled back, at which time Paul rebuked him for being inconsistent toward the Gospel. Paul was right, and Peter knew it. But since Peter was not instructing anyone on faith and morals, this incident does not fall under the question of papal infallibility.

Peter was human; of all the disciples, his failings are most known to us (the denials, for example). Yet he was still Christ's chosen representative as Head of His Church. Christ knew Peter would sin; Peter was no different in that respect than any man. But when it comes to matters of teaching faith and morals, the Holy Spirit guides the Pope, and makes his pronouncements in such matters infallible. Not as a man, but as Christ's chosen representative.

 

[visionary]

Well, if it ever happens I will let you know, but so far in 2000 years it is yet to happen. There may have been maybe 4 “bad” popes morally themselves out of 264 but they have never taught immorality or false teaching to the Church, they were to busy committing sin I guess to teach us anything “out of line.”

Never taught immorality or false teaching to the Church....

 

[Abba]

The Pope has a whole ring of people under him that he listens to, so he can carry out things in the interest of the whole church. These people greatly influence him. If he didnt have them, he would probably drown in all of the work he has to do.

Who gets to rebuke protestant ministers if they are leading people into error?

 

[Benedicta00]

Never taught immorality or false teaching to the Church....

Never.