Quorans on Conflict between Pope and Bible, Hypothetical Question

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Quorans on Conflict between Pope and Bible, Hypothetical Question · Great Bishop of Geneva! : Lita Cosner attacks Catholic doctrine, defending their "Bible alone" heresy

Q

If there is direct conflict between Bible and what pope said (Ex Cathedra), what is considered truth for Catholics?
https://www.quora.com/If-there-is-direct-conflict-between-Bible-and-what-pope-said-Ex-Cathedra-what-is-considered-truth-for-Catholics

Own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl,

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Written Wed

If there is direct conflict about what the text certainly says (thus, not a question of his siding with one traditional text against another), that would prove him a heretic and a non-Pope.

I think for instance that the decision of “John Paul II” and “Cardinal Ratzinger” in early 1994 against the “fundamentalist” way of reading Scripture is enough to prove both of them heretics, to prove Wojtyla was not pope, and to prove that Ratzinger then and there prevented his election in 2005 from being a valid one, supposing (as adherents of e g Pope Michael do not) that the death of Wojtyla left the papacy vacant.

Heloise Campbell

Are you espousing fundamentalism ? That is a heresy in the Catholic Church as it should be. I cannot see how you could support it

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“ That is a heresy in the Catholic Church as it should be.”

OK, what Pope or Council condemned it in what exact number of Denzinger? Or you can omit the Denzinger number, as long as you specify for instance Trent Session IV … which is not exactly going YOUR way.

Heloise Campbell

You yourself accused 2 Popes of heresy for doing just that. I am simply pointing out that it is extraordinary to consider your interpretation of theology greater than theirs. In fact, Pope Francis has also done so, claiming that no Catholic should claim to have absolute access to the truth because of their religious beliefs. He says fundamentalism breeds rigidity and intolerance. I agree with him

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Supposing they are Popes.

I think Bergoglio proved he was not such when “canonising” Wojtyla and Roncalli.

He is also proving it again by nonsense like the things you just quoted.

As Argentinian, he also has even before “election” an ongoing conflict with Catholic Fundamentalists in same city, Buenos Aires.

While I don’t think Alexander IX as he calls himself is the true Pope, while I think he is too rigid as very rigid Feeneyist, I appreciate his being what is usually termed a Fundie.

Bergoglio certainly ran afoul of a man who would excommunicate Mother Theresa posthumously.

In other words, some Sedevacantists are actually praying for her soul, he said “don’t even pray for her, she’s damned”.

This can very well have decided what view Bergoglio took on Fundamentalism in general.

I was even before the pseudo-canonisation of 2014 asking what his exact view on Fundamentalism was, since I had heard worrying news even in 2013.

As to:

“no Catholic should claim to have absolute access to the truth because of their religious beliefs”

it is neither here nor there.

It is possible to take that as a Catholic not having absolute access to every aspect of every truth because he is Catholic, which is correct. And which has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of Fundamentalist Bible exegesis - unless it be one can start to wonder whether your type thinks you have so because of your non-Fundie and modern-Catholic beliefs.

It is also possible and actually grammatically preferrable to take it as a Catholic not having absolutely certain access to the truth which saves, which is clear heresy.

If that is what he meant, if he can confirm that is what he meant, that is one more indictment of Bergoglio.

Heloise Campbell

Perhaps our point of difference lies with different definitions of fundamentalism. I am referring to a literal interpretation of the bible and to a rigid adherence to certain religious doctrines to the exclusion of others. I am also referring to a mindset that values a personal interpretation of religious doctrine over a communion with a wider church and the acknowledgement of Church Magesterium

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“I am referring to a literal interpretation of the bible”

So do most people.

And in the Catholic Church, there is no actual condemnation of that, unless you count Bergoglio and Wojtyla/Ratzinger as Catholics AND also count the small talk of one and medium important documents of “Cardinal Ratzinger under Pope John Paul II” as actually canonically condemning anything as heresy which was not so before, and as trumping Trent, which referred to the consensus of Church Fathers in the Session IV I mentioned, since for certain aspects of Biblical history ALL Church Fathers were for a Literal Interpretation of the Bible.

Actually, for any sentence in the Bible, the Catholic Church is traditionally for a Literal one, not necessarily a straightforward one. But with historic books it will usually be a very straightforward one for most sentences.

It is only that the Tradition is also for three other senses of the same sentence.

The nature and extent of sacred doctrine (Prima Pars, Q. 1) (article 10).
http://newadvent.com/summa/1001.htm#article10

The rest of what you say is actually just bla bla compared to that.

Heloise Campbell

You are talking gobblegook and do not understand the theology of this matter and set yourself up as having more authority than the last 3 Popes. I am very disappointed as I thought you might have something to say of interest

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I note that you think 3 clearly uncatholic non-Popes have more authority on Catholic exegesis than St Thomas Aquinas, and that my saying so is to you somehow equivalent of my feeling superior to actual Popes.

Other answer

James Hough,

Catholic who teaches Catechism, RCIA, and Prayer classes.

Written Jan 18, 2014

There is never direct conflict between the Bible and what the Pope says, that is a logical impossibility. Truth for Catholics is considered to be a person: Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God. That Truth is proclaimed in the Bible which the Church wrote and the early popes approved, especially Pope Damascus at the Council of Rome in the late fourth century. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, as such, he can only infallibly proclaim the Truth as it has already been revealed. Catholics believe that revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, no further revelation can be made for the simple reason that in sending His Son, God has revealed Himself completely, and given to His Church all Truth. The fact that the pope cannot commit error means that he cannot disagree with the Bible, as both are led by the Holy Spirit. If there is a direct conflict between what you read in the Bible and what the Pope says, the answer is that you are reading the Bible incorrectly, as St. Peter said in 2 Peter 3:16: 16 when speaking of reading St. Paul's letters: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." The interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is thus entrusted to the Magisterium (which means the Pope, and those Bishops in communion with him) of the Church, any other interpretation is, by definition, in error.

Could not add comment

I agree that "There is never direct conflict between the Bible and what the Pope says, that is a logical impossibility."

I just don't agree this means there is no conflict between Wojtyla's acts in 1986 and the Bible, specifically at Assisi, or Bergoglio's "canonising" him, specifically after his not having publically rep)ented of Assisi, after his having repeated it during the Balkan Wars (and worst massacres happened after that peace prayer) and having left the idea as legacy to his successor.

That is the exact reason why James Hough is blocking me.

His reference to II Peter 3:16 is perfectly valid - as long as we are dealing with real Popes.

Here are however some attacks on his answer, directed not against Antipope "Francis", but against Papacy in general, and he is doing well in defending the Catholic position:

Ray Newman

I thought this was Quora, not Right Wing Watch.

James Hough

And I thought that the person asking the question wanted the answer.

Verne Von Fuego

Is it not written "Call no man Father....."

James Hough

Yes, Our Blessed Lord often used hyperbole. But if everyone went around doing everything He said when He was using hyperbole, we would have a world full of one eyed Christians with only one hand as they all would have torn their offending eye out, and cut off their hand. You are supposed to read the Scriptures in context, and the context is always the teaching of Christ's Church.

When He sent the apostles and their successors out into the world to "teach all nations", the New Testament was one of those teaching tools. But you can not rip one verse out of context and use it to refute the Church that wrote it!

Verne Von Fuego

Actually it is written "And call no man your Father on the Earth: for one is your Father, which is in Heaven. " Pretty specific hyperbole.

James Hough

Yes, Our Blessed Lord was very specific when He spoke: I repeat, though, you are reading the Scriptures, read them in context and with the correct interpretation (the Church's interpretation) as it is She who wrote them.