Showing posts with label church authority. Show all posts
The Myth: All Popes when elected must sit on the Sedes Stercoraria, a chair with a hole in the centre of the seat, without underwear on, in order to have their genitals touched, to prove that they are a man. This arose after Pope Joan ruled to make sure that the same mistake would not occur again.
In the item above we discussed the Pope Joan myth, the is the first step of disproving the myth of the Sedes Stercoraria. If Joan never existed, the need to prove the elected Pope male also does not exist.
The thrones with holes in it at St John Lateran’s do indeed exist, and were used in the elevation of Pope Pascal II in 1099 (Boureau 1988). In fact, one is still in the Vatican Museums another at the Musée du Louvre. They do indeed have a hole in the seat. However, the reason for the hole is disputed, but as both the seats and their holes predated the Pope Joan story, and indeed Catholicism by centuries, they clearly have nothing to do with a need to check the sex of a pope. It has been speculated that they originally were Roman bidets or imperial birthing stools, which because of their age and imperial links were used in ceremonies by popes intent on highlighting their own imperial claims.
The humanist Jacopo d’Angelo de Scarparia who visited Rome in 1406 for the enthronement of Gregory XII in which the pope sat briefly on two “pierced chairs” at the Lateran, said: “the vulgar tell the insane fable that he is touched to verify that he is indeed a man”
In closing
Download or Play Tu Es Petrus
The Myth: In the middle ages, there was a “Pope Joan,” a woman who hid her gender and rose through the ranks of the Church, became a cardinal and was elected pope. No one knew she was a woman until, during a papal procession through the streets of Rome, she went into labor and gave birth to a child. She and the baby were killed on the spot by the mob, enraged at her imposture.
But the facts of history show otherwise. The primary proofs that this is all just a fable are these: First, the earliest point that we can trace the legend to is the mid-13th century, but the legend didn't really gain wide currency until the late 14th century. No evidence of any kind exists from the ninth century (when Pope Joan was alleged to have reigned), nor do we see any in the 10th through 12th centuries. None of the annals or acts of the popes that were written between the ninth and 13th centuries (and none after that, either) mention her.
It’s important to remember that even if there had been a female impostor pope, this would just mean that an invalid election had taken place, nothing more. Other invalidly elected claimants to the papal office have come and gone over the centuries, and the fact that a woman made that list would simply mean that a woman made that list. She would not have been pope – no one invalidly elected would be.
This is probably also a good time to point out that in order to be validly elected as Pope, you must be over the age of reason (generally considered to be 7 years old), you must be male, and you must be baptized.
 |
| First Vatican Council |
The Myth: According to Papal infallibility, the Pope can not make any mistakes – but they have! The Popes once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and we know that is wrong.
This myth has arisen from a misunderstanding of Papal infallibility. This is the actual definition of Papal Infallibility:
- The Pope must be making a decree on matters of faith or morals
- The declaration must be binding on the whole Church
- The Pope must be speaking with the full authority of the Papacy, and not in a personal capacity.
 |
| Pope Pius IX (1846 – 1878) |
The last section of the final sentence “let him be anathema” is a standard phrase that normally appears at the end of an infallible statement. It means “let him be cursed”. Catholics believe that the Pope can err in non-religious matters, and that he has done so on many occasions throughout history.
Bishop Leonard P. Blair of the Diocese of Toledo writes a very clear and simple letter to his flock.
Few of us remain untouched by the scourge of breast cancer. Whether among our families, friends or neighbors, there are a great many women in our country who confront this disease every day with tremendous faith and courage.
Researchers, physicians and medical personnel, using their God-given intelligence and skill, work very hard not only to provide healing of those who are afflicted, but also to find a cure. We are all familiar with the mobilization of effort in our country on behalf of this worthy goal.
One of the most widely known initiatives is that of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Many people participate in efforts to raise funds for this cause, including some of our Catholic institutions and schools.
While we want to do everything possible to support the search for a cure, sadly the landscape of medical research today is sometimes marred by the erroneous belief that research is not bound by moral norms rooted in faith and reason, as reflected in the teaching of the Church. That teaching holds, for example, that it is not morally acceptable to destroy one human life, even in its embryonic stage, in order to save another human life.
For some time, moral questions have been raised from various quarters about the research funded by the Komen Foundation. The Bishops of Ohio have discussed this and have looked into the matter. As best we can determine, at present the Komen Foundation does not fund cancer research that employs embryonic stem cells. However, their policy does not exclude that possibility. They are open to embryonic stem cell research, and may very well fund such research in the future. They are also contributors to Planned Parenthood, which, though it may claim to provide needed medical services to poor women, is also the largest provider of abortions in our country.
In order to avoid even the possibility of cooperation in morally unacceptable activities, the other Bishops and I believe that it would be wise to find alternatives to Komen for Catholic fundraising efforts.
For that reason, I am directing that in the fight against breast cancer, fundraising carried out under Catholic auspices, including our schools, should be channeled to our locally known Mercy Cancer Centers instead of Komen.
Through Mercy, we can help local women who are without financial means to receive specialized care which includes treatment, detection and support in their fight against breast cancer. We can be assured that at Mercy, these women will receive a high level of compassionate care that respects their human dignity.
More information will be coming to you from Mercy regarding this opportunity. I thank you for your cooperation and support. Together let us pray for all cancer sufferers, especially those in the greatest physical, spiritual and emotional need.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Leonard P. Blair
Bishop of Toledo
Is it the Bible alone or Bible and Tradition? What is the pillar and foundation of truth? If we believe that the Bible is the infallible inspired word of God, 1 Timothy 3:15 tells us we find that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Most non-Catholic Christians believe that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith. Martin Luther claimed this when he broke away from the Catholic Church, i.e. the claim of "Sola Scriptura." Catholics have, on the other hand, always accepted the teaching authority of the Church together with the Bible as the basis for our Faith.So then, how do Catholics come to this position?
Well we didn't actually come to this position; we have been simply living it out since the very inception of the Church. A brief historical perspective might be helpful in understanding this.
From a previous post (Is the Bible Inspired?), we saw that the New Testament books were not really put together as a completed Bible until approximately 400 AD. So we know that the earliest Christians did not have access to the written word. We also know that until the invention of the printing press in the 1450's, the Bible was not accessible to most people due to the difficult and time consuming task of making copies by hand. It wasn't even until fairly recently that faithful Christians were educated enough to be able to read the Bible.
Make you wonder how the Christian faith was passed on to believers during this period of when access to the Bible was quite limited.
The answer is that practically all of the teaching during this time was done by oral instruction relying on the teaching authority of the Church for the proper interpretation of the Scriptures and for the passing on of Apostolic Tradition.
The Bible itself is quite clear regarding the significance of tradition (see John 21:25, 2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2). Since these scripture references, along with many others, refer to both tradition and the spoken word, they MUST be integrated into the Christian understanding of revelation. Since the Word of God can not contradict itself, the only choice we have as Bible believing Christians is to accept tradition as well as scripture as our source of faith.
Some in the Catholic Church love Vatican II because they think it finally brought the Catholic Church out of the dark ages. Some suspect the Second Vatican Council because they fear it sold out faithfulness to the truth in favor of current opinion.
This excerpt from Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25, explains the authority of the Magisterium or Apostolic teaching authority of the Church and the way in which Catholics are bound to submit to that authority.
25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility, with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)
