Pope lifts excommunication for Holocaust denying Brit

[the button]

who defines whether a pronouncement is fallible or not fallible?

Depends what kind of infallibility it is. Basically there are three kinds: -

1) If it's papal infallibility, the pope gets to decide (sweet, eh? ).
2) The infallibility of the church. The church teaches that "the church can neither deceive nor be deceived." This leads to some interesting canon law, in that -- even though canon law includes long lists of shit about what needs to happen for stuff like marriages, baptisms, etc to be valid -- if a marriage is celebrated by a priest whose ordination is not valid, the marriage is still valid if the people present didn't know this. (Man, I used to love canon law ).
3) The infallibility of ecumenical councils. Not every statement of an ecumenical council is valid -- only those with an anathema attached (i.e. "believe this or your fucked.") Declarations that are papally infallibile also have anathemas attached.

Other than in canon law, the infallibility of the church is seldom invoked. Although it used to be a key element in the process of declaring saints -- basically, there would be a local cult of a certain saint, and the church heirarchy would "recognise" rather than "proclaim" sainthood. The process in its present form crystallised around the time of the council of Trent. Although John Paul II (who "made" more saints than the rest of his predecessors put together) streamlined the process somewhat by abolishing the post of "devil's advocate," whose job it was to go back through the candidate's life trying to dig up shit about them.

 

[the button]

is there some sort of special prcedure though?

For papal infallibility, there are five conditions: -

* it's the pope, not someone else
* he's speaking "ex cathedra" i.e. in the magic chair, as "shepherd of all Christians"
* he's defining something, rather than saying who's going to win the 3.30 at Haydock Park
* what he's defining is to do with faith or morals
* it must be "held by the whole church."

The last condition is an interesting one, since it could mean one of two things. Either: -

* it must be held by the whole church already, so the role of the pope is just to recognise and define what the church believes already, or
* I'm the fucking pope, this is what I say, so the church had better believe it or else.

The case of the assumption of the blessed virgin Mary was more type 1 than type 2. This, as I say, being the only instance of the exercise of papal infallibility.

 

[frogwoman]

fair enough is there really a magic chair he has to sit in for this, lol?

 

[the button]

fair enough is there really a magic chair he has to sit in for this, lol?

Well, "ex cathedra" means "from the seat" (cathedrals being named such cos it's were bishops had their seats) and they are actual seats. The one papally infallibile doctrine was defined from the pope's throne, but I imagine he could always make an infallible pronouncement that he could make infallibile pronouncements from wherever the fuck he wanted.

In his dotage, John Paul II came very close to infallibly pronouncing that the virgin Mary was "co-redemptrix" -- i.e. that it wasn't just Jeebus that saved us from our sins, it was Mary as well. A position that more conservative elements in the church have been pushing for some time.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Except when he is in his magic chair

Is that the one where he's able to swing freely in the breeze, so to speak?

 

[frogwoman]

Well, "ex cathedra" means "from the seat" (cathedrals being named such cos it's were bishops had their seats) and they are actual seats. The one papally infallibile doctrine was defined from the pope's throne, but I imagine he could always make an infallible pronouncement that he could make infallibile pronouncements from wherever the fuck he wanted.

In his dotage, John Paul II came very close to infallibly pronouncing that the virgin Mary was "co-redemptrix" -- i.e. that it wasn't just Jeebus that saved us from our sins, it was Mary as well. A position that more conservative elements in the church have been pushing for some time.

Fair enough. Is there a reason why this hasn't been taught as Catholic doctrine before?

This is really interesting thread btw

 

[Yossarian]

fair enough is there really a magic chair he has to sit in for this, lol?

Yep, scripture had some allegory where "from the seat of Saint Peter" meant "from God's authority" or suchlike, and the Vatican actually built some elaborate seat of Saint Peter, and that's where the Pope needs to sit to make infallible pronouncements.

 

[the button]

Is there a reason why this hasn't been taught as Catholic doctrine before?

If you look at the development of Marian dogma (i.e. the bits of doctrine to do with the person of the blessed virgin Mary), it's basically a history of upping the ante on the role of Mary.

It goes from: -
* Virgin birth. Which says nothing much about Mary at all, really, just that she was a virgin, and that Jeebus was "conceived by the power of the holy spirit."

* The growing belief in Mary as "mediatrix," i.e. someone that can mediate for us with god. This is in the "hail Mary" -- "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." Increased devotion to Mary led in turn to....

* Immaculate conception. This is the doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without the stain of original sin. This is quite different to the doctrine of the virgin birth, although the two are often confused.

* Assumption of the blessed virgin Mary. This follows logically (well, according to a certain kind of logic ) from the immaculate conception. The argument went, "Since Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, and since, as St Paul tells us in the letter to the Romans, 'the wages of sin is death,' then how come the virgin Mary died then? Eh? Eh? Answer me that!" To which the answer was "The virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven."

As Mary gets more and more "special", she begins to look more and more like Jeebus, and her work in the "economy of salvation" (that really is what it's called ) gets bigger and bigger. Although it looks fairly mental from the outside, there is a definite logic (or number of logics) to the development of church teaching. The "co-redemptrix" stuff is of a part with the development of Marian dogma over the past 150 years or so.

 

[frogwoman]

If you look at the development of Marian dogma (i.e. the bits of doctrine to do with the person of the blessed virgin Mary), it's basically a history of upping the ante on the role of Mary.

It goes from: -
* Virgin birth. Which says nothing much about Mary at all, really, just that she was a virgin, and that Jeebus was "conceived by the power of the holy spirit."

* The growing belief in Mary as "mediatrix," i.e. someone that can mediate for us with god. This is in the "hail Mary" -- "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." Increased devotion to Mary led in turn to....

* Immaculate conception. This is the doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without the stain of original sin. This is quite different to the doctrine of the virgin birth, although the two are often confused.

* Assumption of the blessed virgin Mary. This follows logically (well, according to a certain kind of logic ) from the immaculate conception. The argument went, "Since Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, and since, as St Paul tells us in the letter to the Romans, 'the wages of sin is death,' then how come the virgin Mary died then? Eh? Eh? Answer me that!" To which the answer was "The virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven."

As Mary gets more and more "special", she begins to look more and more like Jeebus, and her work in the "economy of salvation" (that really is what it's called ) gets bigger and bigger. Although it looks fairly mental from the outside, there is a definite logic (or number of logics) to the development of church teaching. The "co-redemptrix" stuff is of a part with the development of Marian dogma over the past 150 years or so.

so was mary herself born of a virgin then? or just born without sin? and she didn't actually die, but was taken up to heaven?

what do most practicing catholics believe? is this part of mainstream catholicism, or just a certain group of people wthin it?

 

[frogwoman]

the economy of salvation? im sorry, but that actually is crazy ...

 

[the button]

so was mary herself born of a virgin then? or just born without sin? and she didn't actually die, but was taken up to heaven?

what do most practicing catholics believe? is this part of mainstream catholicism, or just a certain group of people wthin it?

She wasn't born of a virgin, just without the stain of original sin (which is subtly different from being born without sin, but i) it's late and ii) I'm not a Jesuit anymore ).

Whether she died or not is precisely the (raging, incredibily heated) debate that defining the doctrine of the assumption sets out to address. The wording of the doctrine is very clever. It says, "having completed the course of her earthly life, [the blessed virgin Mary] was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

Now, one side of the debate could say, "Ha! 'Completed the course of her earthly life'! Told you she was dead. LOL. PWNED! Lossers!, etc." While the other side could say, "Ha! 'Completed the course of her earthly life'! So she didn't actually die then, she was just on her death-bed. LOL. PWNED! Lossers!" It's intentionally ambiguous to accommodate both sides -- in this case, the Franciscans and the Dominicans, although I can't remember who argued what.

 

[cesare]

I find the development of the Marian dogma very interesting. At some point I wouldn't mind doing some work to find out when the Hail Mary started to increase in use (the mini redemption of confession), tied in with the numbers of women increasing in congregations, tied in with the role of the mother (and the issue of artificial contraception), tied in with womens' emancipation.

And the conservative element are pushing it ...

 

[JohnnyOrange]

Can never work out why the vatican loves nazis so much.

Jews killed Jesus.

The threads moved on a bit since this, but if the Jews had killed Jesus he would have been stoned to death; Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution. Even if the Saducees / general mob did press for Christ's Crucifixion, Pilate would have asserted his authority as Governor, none of that hand-washing crap.

Which of course means that the Vatican, if it can't get over the Christ-murder thing, should have more of a downer on the Italians than the Jews. Which wouldn't work, given the location of Catholic HQ. And shouldn't they revere whoever was instrumental in Christ's death seeing as they were playing an essential role in fulfilling a Messianic prophecy?

If any of it happened. Which it probably didn't*?

*I know this is true. I've seen it on buses.

 

[the button]

So, this Bishop Williamson. What a cunt, eh?

It'll be interesting to see how the Vatican handles him, for a number of reasons.

First of all, he's one of the bishops that Lefebvre ordained, without papal permission -- the reason why the Lefebvrists were excommunicated in the first place. So.... will the Vatican recognise his ordination as a bishop? (This is where the bit of canon law about 'if people think it's valid, it was valid' comes in). Incidentally, I think this is part of the reason why the Vatican are so keen to get them back on board -- nothing makes them shit their pants like the ministry of the sacraments without really knowing whether they're valid or not. What the theologian David Tracy calls "the blessed rage for order." On the other hand, I can't really see the schismatics (lol) agreeing to come back into the fold unless their orders are recognised.

Second of all, if the Vatican do recognise his ordination as a bishop, where will they make him bishop of? An episcopal see has to be a geographical area. This is where I think the Vatican might be pulling a fast one. In effect, they have the opportunity to bury him in the church beauracracy where he and his confreres will never be seen or heard of again. Many bishops have diocese that are purely nominal (i.e. they never visit they -- often they're not allowed to for reasons I won't go into). So he stays a bishop (bully for him) but loses any kind of public profile he might have had (bully for the Vatican).

Third, the Lefebvrists (or SSPX as they style themselves) have the opportunity to grow exponentially once they're back within the fold. Ultra-conservative religious groups are growing at a rate of knots in the church at the moment, and the fact that they're schismatic will have been holding them back, to say the least. This is if (and it's a big if) the Vatican allows them to maintain a separate identity within the church. But I'm guessing they will.

 

[Yossarian]

Third, the Lefebvrists (or SSPX as they style themselves) have the opportunity to grow exponentially once they're back within the fold. Ultra-conservative religious groups are growing at a rate of knots in the church at the moment, and the fact that they're schismatic will have been holding them back, to say the least. This is if (and it's a big if) the Vatican allows them to maintain a separate identity within the church. But I'm guessing they will.

I'm starting to get the impression that Ratzinger didn't agree with Vatican II and is happy to dispense with a few tens of millions of wishy-washy Catholics to tighten his grip on the right-wingers.

 

[DotCommunist]

Like it matters, as history shows they'll just out-pope natzinger by electing a parallel pope.

 

[Yossarian]

Like it matters, as history shows they'll just out-pope natzinger by electing a parallel pope.

Which is why I think these schisms need to be paid attention to and magnified, hopefully in another ten years there'll be a dozen competing Popes and in another ten pretty much anybody will be able to wander around in a silly hat anointing bishops.

 

[cesare]

Like it matters, as history shows they'll just out-pope natzinger by electing a parallel pope.

Do you think so? Backed with money from where?

 

[Yossarian]

Do you think so? Backed with money from where?

Selling indulgences and splinters of the True Cross?

 

[the button]

I'm starting to get the impression that Ratzinger didn't agree with Vatican II and is happy to dispense with a few tens of millions of wishy-washy Catholics to tighten his grip on the right-wingers.

Ratzinger was on the liberal (if not downright modernist) wing of Vatican II, influenced heavily by Karl Rahner. And, indeed, Hans Kung, who he took action against when he became prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

But we all know that a liberal is just an authoritarian minus the power.

 

[cesare]

Ratzinger was on the liberal (if not downright modernist) wing of Vatican II, influenced heavily by Karl Rahner. And, indeed, Hans Kung, who he took action against when he became prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

But we all know that a liberal is just an authoritarian minus the power.

Nobody expects the doctrine of the faith!

 

[the button]

Like it matters, as history shows they'll just out-pope natzinger by electing a parallel pope.

They don't need to now. Who's betting that one of the Lefebvrist bishops is a cardinal within five years?

 

[DotCommunist]

Do you think so? Backed with money from where?

the collection plate? religious movements are self funding, splitters know that

 

[the button]

the collection plate? religious movements are self funding, splitters know that

Nah, collection plates are fuck all. If the Jesuits didn't own half of Lancashire and a goodly chunk of Mayfair, my vow of poverty might have acually meant something. Perish the thought.

 

[DotCommunist]

Nah, collection plates are fuck all. If the Jesuits didn't own half of Lancashire and a goodly chunk of Mayfair, my vow of poverty might have acually meant something. Perish the thought.

I bet the african bishops could get a movement for an african pope going. Given how riven the church is on the homosexuality issue.

 

[Azrael]

Thats the one,Ted makes a very funny comparsion between the Catholic Church and the Nazis,fucked if I can think of it.

"I'm not a Nazi. I'm a preist. Nazis dress in black and go round telling people what to do, whereas preists ... erm, more drink!"

 

[Belushi]

Some fascinating stuff on this thread, especially from the button.

 

[cesare]

Some fascinating stuff on this thread, especially from the button.

Yep, I find it fascinating too. You get a real insight into why some of these organised religions have endured for so long. Out-politicking the politicians.

 

[Streathamite]

So, this Bishop Williamson. What a cunt, eh?

It'll be interesting to see how the Vatican handles him, for a number of reasons.

First of all, he's one of the bishops that Lefebvre ordained, without papal permission -- the reason why the Lefebvrists were excommunicated in the first place. So.... will the Vatican recognise his ordination as a bishop? (This is where the bit of canon law about 'if people think it's valid, it was valid' comes in). Incidentally, I think this is part of the reason why the Vatican are so keen to get them back on board -- nothing makes them shit their pants like the ministry of the sacraments without really knowing whether they're valid or not. What the theologian David Tracy calls "the blessed rage for order." On the other hand, I can't really see the schismatics (lol) agreeing to come back into the fold unless their orders are recognised.

Second of all, if the Vatican do recognise his ordination as a bishop, where will they make him bishop of? An episcopal see has to be a geographical area. This is where I think the Vatican might be pulling a fast one. In effect, they have the opportunity to bury him in the church beauracracy where he and his confreres will never be seen or heard of again. Many bishops have diocese that are purely nominal (i.e. they never visit they -- often they're not allowed to for reasons I won't go into). So he stays a bishop (bully for him) but loses any kind of public profile he might have had (bully for the Vatican).

Third, the Lefebvrists (or SSPX as they style themselves) have the opportunity to grow exponentially once they're back within the fold. Ultra-conservative religious groups are growing at a rate of knots in the church at the moment, and the fact that they're schismatic will have been holding them back, to say the least. This is if (and it's a big if) the Vatican allows them to maintain a separate identity within the church. But I'm guessing they will.

christ, you actually CAN'T forget any of this, can you?

 

[Azrael]

Yep, I find it fascinating too. You get a real insight into why some of these organised religions have endured for so long. Out-politicking the politicians.

Plus they've got these fine chaps on hand:-

I wouldn't mess with anyone confident enough to wear that uniform.