Pope Francis is Time's Person of the Year

Not bad for a "dying", "irrelevant" institution stuck in the 10th century.
Mm-hmm.

Heck, when Time Magazine itself is lost in the dustbin of history, the papacy will still be going strong.

+++++++

Update: To find out what the Time article got all wrong, read Fr. Robert Barron's excellent piece, HERE.

Wanna see what three million people look like?

All you have to do is look to the "dying, irrelevant" Church and the elderly man who leads her.

Last week I had a man tell me (as so many have before him) that the Catholic Church would have to change her outdated teachings "if it is to survive".

This week, the AP reports that 3 million young people attended the final Mass of World Youth Day in Rio. Yep, the Pope -- that old man in charge of the decaying Church-on-life-support -- drew 3 million youth.

Take a look:

Catholic Universe Newspapers

They say the crowd of pilgrims stretched for two miles.

Felipe Dana/AP

I can't help but think of my favorite description of the papacy, written by 19th century English historian Thomas Macaulay and excerpted here:

There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church.  

The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. 

The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable…. 

Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all….

As I've said before, there is no earthly explanation for the fact that the Catholic Church, grounded in the office of the papacy, survives and thrives after 20 centuries, but there is a supernatural explanation:

And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. -- Matthew 16:18

My dear friends, Jesus Christ is a Man of His word.

+++++++

PS: If you want to see mobs of wholesome, Christ-centered, youthful joy, go here. What fun!

PPS: What Pope Francis really said about gay people, here. And the video, here.



.

Pope Fact: Infallible does not mean sinless

The question I got from Mehridith at the bottom of this older post is a common one:

"I don't understand how one can come to the conclusion that someone is without sin; i.e., the Pope being infallible. Can someone explain this to me, a faithful Protestant?" 

I whipped off a quick answer:

Hi Mehridith! I think I can clear it up fairly quickly. We don't believe that popes are without sin. All of them were/are sinners, and some were grave, horrible sinners. So, infallibility does not mean what you think it means. It means that, sinners that they are, the popes will never teach doctrine which is in error. Like the writers of the Bible who wrote without doctrinal error… the popes cannot teach error on issues of faith and morals. Hope that helps! I will come and write more in a bit if I get a chance. (But basically, infallibility is not impeccability.)

To expand just a bit, here are the facts:

1) All of the 266 popes have sinned, including the first pope, St. Peter, who committed among the worst of sins: He denied Christ three times during Christ's Passion.

2) While all of the popes have been sinners, it's also true that many of the popes have practiced heroic virtue, rising to the heights of great sanctity. The first popes (and several subsequent popes) died as martyrs for the faith, and many popes have been canonized or beatified. Saintly popes are common.

3) Though most popes were good and holy men, there were a handful of popes who were bad, wicked and/or corrupt. A recounting of their personal sin would make your hair curl! It is entirely possible that there are popes in hell.

4) Whether saintly or evil, no pope has ever taught heresy (i.e., no pope has ever taught error as truth). The Holy Spirit guides the Church and protects her so that the faithful will never be led into doctrinal error -- no matter who sits in the Chair of Peter.

5) If you wonder how someone can speak truth while not living it, think of a math professor teaching his students perfectly correct formulas and concepts, while he himself cheats on his taxes and cannot seem to keep a balanced checkbook. Or think of a chronic adulterer who preaches that adultery is wrong. His actions are evil, but what he says is perfectly true.


Just as God protected sinful men from teaching doctrinal error when writing the Bible, He also protected sinful Peter and his sinful successors from teaching doctrinal error while leading His Church.

Infallibility does not mean impeccability.


Related posts:

The Pope is not as powerful as you think

The different types of infallibility

"…and the Papacy remains"

Protestants: It's time to come back



.

Are we really "fringe" Catholics?

Important Disclaimer! This post is not about who is a "better" person than another. As I have said countless times on this blog, only God can read and judge hearts and souls. This post seeks to address only what objectively constitutes the "fringe" of Catholicism vs. what constitutes the normative or mainstream. 

A non-Catholic reader, Johanne, left an interesting comment during a recent discussion on this post.

[A]s a non-Catholic, I only know if someone SAYS they're a Catholic--I can't evaluate whether or not they are living out their faith. For all I know YOU are not a "real" Catholic. I don't mean in any way to imply that you're not, and it's not anyone's obligation to offer their credentials to me, or anyone else. I'm just sharing my bemusement when I hear religious folks claim that other members of their faith are not "real" members of their faith. At times I have described conversations I've been a part of on "The Bubble" to other Catholics and have been told you sound like members of a "fringe." I'm not saying they're accurate, I'm just saying it's confusing. I guess that's why there are so many religions and so many sects within those religions. People feel a need to find their niche. 

The sentiments are nothing new; faithful Catholics hear this sort of thing a lot. Let's look at it: "Fringe" implies that we are on the margins of the Faith, and outside of the mainstream of Catholicism. Interestingly, many Catholics who identify me or the Catholics from this blog as "fringe" have the same thoughts about Pope Benedict XVI. They see him as being extremist, or out-of-touch, or stuck in the past. They have their own ideas about what Catholicism is or should be or must one day become.

And therein lies the problem. Most American Catholics are not operating within the Catholic paradigm!

The Catholic paradigm is hierarchical. We have a Magisterium*. In the Catholic religion, we have an earthly standard-bearer, a touchstone for orthodoxy, and a final authority: The pope. The pope is normative for our Catholic Faith, and he can never be on the fringe, but only in the center. The pope guards and protects the unbroken teachings from Christ, and hands them down, intact. Unlike Protestant denominations, doctrinal truth is not up for a vote, and the faithful cannot pick and choose what is or is not a part of the Faith.
       
But many American Catholics, unaware of this paradigm (or simply disliking it), live as practical Protestants. They refuse to submit to the authority of the pope, reject some or most of the Deposit of Faith, and then label as "extreme" those Catholics who accept the entire Faith. But that's the wrong perspective, of course. In fact, the further away one gets from embracing all the teachings of the Church, the closer he gets to the "fringe".

Here's a good illustration. At the great Easter Vigil -- the universal Church's most important liturgy of the year -- those being received into the fullness of the Catholic Church recite these words at the sacred altar of God:

“I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.” 

This remarkable statement is normative, mainstream Catholicism. It is the very basis of what makes us Catholic. A Catholic who speaks these words and means them is not on the "fringe" of Catholicism, but resides in her very center.

The question may arise, then, just what are the teachings of the Church? Thankfully, that's easy to know. Again, look to the pope. Look to the unchanging teachings of the Church, which have been handed on for 20 centuries. Look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Blessed John Paul the Great called a "sure norm for teaching the faith" and "a sure and authentic reference text." No one has to wonder what the Church teaches, as it's all there for everyone, including non-Christians, to see.

Church teaching is no mystery, and I'm guessing that even dissenting Catholics know the basics. Johanne, ask your Catholic friends what the Church teaches, officially, about homosexual "marriage". Ask them what the Church teaches about abortion, or about contraception. Ask them what the Church teaches about Christ's resurrection, or Mary's perpetual virginity. Chances are good that they already know what the Catholic Church teaches, even if they disagree.

And Johanne, please invite your Catholic friends to read this post. I'd be most interested to hear their reasons for classifying me and others here as "fringe". I truly am curious as to their evidence or thoughts on that. They will be treated respectfully, as you know!

Ultimately, I'd like them to know that faithful Catholics, like those you might find here in the Bubble, are not "fringe" or on the freakish edge of Catholicism; we're simply folks who strive, first and foremost, to be faithful and obedient (oh, that word!) to the Magisterium, living in the the heart of Christ's Church, where there is plenty of room for everyone.






*Magisterium: The teaching authority of the Catholic Church, comprised of the body of bishops in union with the pope.




.

"...and the Papacy remains."

I.love.this.

I love this.

I love this.

Did I mention that I love this?

I found it excerpted in one of the best books I've ever read, The Spirit of Catholicism, by Karl Adam. It has stayed in my head for well over a decade. It's a description of the Catholic Church, written by 19th century English historian Thomas Macaulay. I thrill to his words. Read them slowly, savor them:

There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. 

The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. 

The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. 

The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. 

The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila…. 

Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. 

She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. 

And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

There is no earthly explanation for the fact that the Catholic Church, grounded in the office of the papacy, survives and thrives after 20 centuries.

And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
-- Matthew 16:18

Jesus Christ is a Man of His word.




.......

Answer to DQS and Grand Prize Winner!!

I'm back with the answer to the Doctrinal Quiz Show, Church History Edition! Once again, I am quite impressed with the answers!

Here was the question I posed:

Over the past 2,000+ years, the Church has held many councils (i.e., gatherings of the world's bishops, often called "ecumenical councils"). These councils have been convened to combat heresy and define doctrine, among other things. Can you name the first two Church councils and the last two Church councils? For an extra edge toward the Grand Prize, please state the approximate date of each council and one major issue that was on the table.

And, here's how I would have answered it (keeping in mind that answers could vary and still get points):

The first Church council (some of you smarty-pants noticed that I gave a little leeway... not all were "ecumenical" councils) was the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). It occurred in the First Century (probably around the year 50 A.D.) The major issue was whether much of the Mosaic Law (such as circumcision) would be required of Gentile converts. In other words, would Gentile converts to Christianity have to become Jewish first? Peter and the other bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, declared that the answer was no.

The second Church council (and the first "ecumenical" council) was the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The Church was combating the Arian heresy and needed to make very clear the nature of Christ's divinity and His relationship to the Father. From this council we received the Nicene Creed, which is still recited every Sunday at Mass after the homily.

The second most recent ecumenical council was the First Vatican Council ("Vatican I"), in 1869-1870. One major issue was the definition of Papal Infallibility.

The most recent ecumenical council was the Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II"), from 1962-1965. One major issue addressed was the liturgy. Another was the Church's relationship to the modern world.

Now, as for the scoring.... There was a maximum possible score of 12 points (three points for each council: one for naming the council, one for giving the approximate date, one for naming a major issue). Mrs. Blondies, Lisa Graas, JoAnna, R.J. Grigaitis, A Martha Trying to Be Mary, and Ruby -- you all did a great job and were in the running! But someone smoked you all, and we'll get to that in a minute.

In the meantime, here are the rest of the Bubble Awards!

The Not Only Were You in the Running, But You Might Have Won If You Weren't Such a Bundle of Nerves, Because I *Think* Your Date for Nicea Was a Typo Award goes to.... Ruby!!

The Expressed Incredulity With a Tinge of Smart-Mouth But it Totally Cracked Me Up Because I Know You Meant it in Love Award goes to.... Sew!! (Sew, just because you are you, you must have about ten Bubble Awards by now. I hope you have a big shelf for them all!)

The I Am Shocked But Consoled That an RCIA Class Actually Taught Such Things Award goes to.... Allie!!

The Okay, Fine, I Will Give You an Award For Answering First Award goes to.... Mary!!

(For those of you who are recent additions to the Bubble and haven't heard my awards disclaimer: I would love to continue handing out awards to everyone, but we do not use the liberal model here, and so not everyone will get an award, even if you are a good person and had a clever answer. Not getting an award will not harm you permanently, and it will help build your character.)

Now, finally, the GRAND PRIZE WINNER and winner of Jay Groft's newly released, beautiful Christmas CD goes to....

K!!!!

Not only does K win the CD (email me and I'll have it sent out to you!), but also the coveted Bubble Award Icon which can be used to win friends and influence people: 

Great, great job, K!!!!!

Good-night everyone, and be sure to join us next time for.... DOCTRINAL QUIZ SHOW!!!!

The Pope and Condoms *UPDATED*

"I've often said that if a sports reporter was as clueless about his subject as the typical religion reporter is about his, he couldn't keep his job for a week. The Pope and condom story is the latest confirmation of that observation."   -- Paul Thigpen

I have been asked to address the recent statement of Pope Benedict regarding condoms.


I will throw out some quick thoughts, but for far superior analyses, go here (Fr. Fessio), here (George Weigel), and here (Archbishop Chaput).


I don't have much to add to those pieces, but I will do what I usually do, which is to take my simple mind and put things in the simplest way I know how:

• In the Pope's example, the person deciding to use a condom is already engaging in gravely sinful activity (prostitution). Using or not using a condom does not in any way change the morality of the act; the person is still committing a terrible sin, which can never be condoned.

• In the Pope's scenario, the condom is not being used for contraception, but as (perceived) protection against disease. Is condom use a legitimate way to stop the spread of AIDS? According to the Pope: "[The Church] of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution"; however, the intention of not wanting to infect your partner with a deadly disease may be "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." In other words, there may be a stirring of the conscience that sex is about love, and not merely "a sort of drug that people administer to themselves."

• It's as if a drug addict was deciding if he should shoot up his partner with the clean needle, or if he should just use the dirty one that's more convenient. That moment of concern for the other might be a step towards morality. It's not the use of the needle that is good; rather, the good is found in the concern for the other. Christianity is all about love, and love is all about willing what is best for the other. Pope Benedict was musing on one of his favorite topics (and the subject of his first encyclical): Love. Even in the midst of a moral hell, there can be movement toward love.

• It is expected by every faithful Catholic on the face of the earth that the media will distort the words of the Pope on any sexual issue, spewing sensational, ignorant or even intentionally misleading headlines all over the globe.

• As in the past, faithful Catholics have looked past the erroneous headlines to uncover the actual story, which is a non-story: No new teaching was given, no changes were made to the moral law. Of course.

• Finally, even if the Pope had waxed eloquent about the moon being made of green cheese, a philosophical musing by a Pontiff in the middle of a long and fascinating interview with a reporter does not rise to the level of an official Church teaching; it is not an exercise of the Magisterium. Not.even.close. 

So, here we sit, with the Deposit of Faith intact, as it has been for 20 centuries and will be forever more. But this latest papal interview sure did give the world something to talk about! I do think all the hoopla is ironic, given that the world was long ago supposed to have written off the papacy as an irrelevant, dusty old relic. Yet even the Pope's most nuanced, non-authoritative utterances seem to carry incredible weight and power, even with the secular media. Go figure.


UPDATE: Speaking of condoms, I just read this on my daughter's blog! I couldn't resist posting it here.