Hacker News Reader

Comment by CGMthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

There's way too much misdirected emphasis on the pope and ecclesiastical hierarchy imo. I wouldn't think too hard about it. You can be catholic and not like the pope just the same as you can be french and not like the king. Or american and not like the president. There is only one divinity on earth today and that's the holy spirit (consubstantial with the father and son), indwelling and guiding humanity on many levels

View on HN

> You can be catholic and not like the pope

You can be christian and not like the pope.

But to catholics, the pope is the terrestrial embodiment of the holy spirit, and as such considered infaillible. Not recognizing the pope as such is incompatible with catholicism.

Papacy is a core part of catholicism, it's not a "pick and choose buffet".

> and as such considered infaillible

This is a common misconception. The pope is only considered as speaking infallibly by the Catholic Church when speaking ex cathedra on matter of faith and morals. This is very rare and is considered to only have happened twice in history.

I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out, very interesting!

> You can be catholic and not like the pope

I come from a Protestant background, so I view Catholicism as just Protestants with a pope. What does it mean to be catholic but without a pope?

Vance can take this one.

You cannot be in full communion with the Catholic Church and not submit to the papal office.

Catholics owe the Pope religious submission of intellect and will to his authentic magisterium (teaching authority) on faith and morals, even when not speaking infallibly (Lumen Gentium 25; CCC 892; Code of Canon Law, can. 752). This is a respectful adherence and presumption in favor of what he teaches officially as Pope. This does not extend to his personal opinions, private theological views, prudential judgments (e.g., on politics, economics, or administrative decisions), or liking him as a person or agreeing with everything he says or does in a non-magisterial capacity.

Probably to be a high-church Anglican/episcopalian?

I appreciate your comment and I understand. My struggles are not about whether or not I like the man who is in the seat.

Another example for you.. Rather than donate money to the church, I donate my time and talent instead. In that way it is focused 100% on my local parish. Another one, I develop my relationship with god in a way that is helped by worship through the church, but is not dependent on it. There are loads of times where the "leadership" of the church leaves something to be desired, yet the progress of gods kindgom marches on. If christianity were to "devolve" in the future to house churches again, that would not stop it. Yet, the fact that it is not a "house church" system today is not a reason not to practice your faith

> I develop my relationship with god in a way that is helped by worship through the church, but is not dependent on it.

The Church certainly disagrees with you, teaching that the visible Church is the ordinary means of salvation and full communion with Christ. (see the Precepts, CCC ~846–848)

The Church can do that, assuming you are interpreting it correctly, which is questionable. I dont know how someone online can tell me definitely whether I will be saved or not though. And Matthew 18:20

I'm not speaking to your personal salvation. I'm speaking in context of what the Catholic Church teaches is required for salvation, as that is the context of this comment thread - take that as you will. The Church (big C, as in the Catholic Church) teaches "infallibly," so if you are a Catholic it really is not up for debate, that there is no salvation outside of Christ AND the Church. That includes the 5 precepts of the Catholic Church - or minimum "laws" you must follow as a Catholic, 4 of which are dependent on the Church itself: attending Mass on Sundays/Holy Days, annual confession at a minimum, receiving Eucharist during Easter, observe fasting/abstaining days, and providing for the Church's needs. Therefore, quite simply, if a Catholic makes the statement "I develop my relationship with god in a way that is helped by worship through the church, but is not dependent on it" that is a direct conflict [0].

I'm not even sure from what position you are arguing from, but both of those statements (relationship with God supported by a visible church rather than requiring it, and Matthew 18:20) are fundamental arguments for Protestantism.

[0] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-re...

We are probably talking past each other around different understandings of what The Church is. To be clear, the church includes parishioners in full communion, baptized protestants, and non-christians ordered toward the church.. it also has visible (hierarchy, canon law etc) and spiritual (holy spirit..) realities. It also works in mysterious ways

If we can agree on that we are closer than you might think. And when I said "not dependent on the church" i was referring not to what I just defined above, but rather what in my head i figured (perhaps wrongly) you were more narrowly referring to.

To continue, at risk of muddying the waters that might have just cleared a little, the nature of the church (a divine mystery) is such that it can be known experientially while never being fully exhausted by human understanding

> you can be french and not like the king

Famously the French got rid of theirs, several times. Maybe not the best example.

Let me try again:

You can be French and not like cheese.

Wait, no, it doesn't work.

>You can be catholic and not like the pope

Quick, read the Nicene creed aloud right now...

Sure

> can be french and not like the king.

I don’t think you can? You know how that worked out? It’s the OG ‘No Kings’.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com