R&R discussion
#6
This is my personal view:
(04-28-2021, 10:48 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: -From the optional mysteries thread-

Fully understand that, and had held fully to that idea. The issue though im starting to run into is statements like this from Pope Leo "Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live."

It sounds like the pope is the one, not the laity (us) to decide what is in harmony with tradition and not, what are to be accepted and not. Basically, as Leo states, that the pope is to be the guide of the faith for all catholics. Thus the impression that one has to listen to what the pope teaches even if it contradicts tradition.
It is true that we must not be quick to criticise the statements and actions of the Pope. It is not what most laity should be doing. We should always try to interpret his statements charitably, although we may feel tired of often hearing strange things.

Yes, Catholics have to listen to what the Pope teaches. Ordinarily, when the teaching concerns things not otherwise known (such as previously defined doctrine) we are to accept what the Pope says. We know that even the Pope may err when the conditions for infallibility are not met, but God wants us to accept his judgment rather than use our private judgement, because that is how He has constituted His Church. Sometimes the Pope may say something (regarding faith or morals) that we suspect is false. Then we are to give him the benefit of the doubt. Other times it may even happen that he says something we know to be false, because of previous infallible teaching. Then of course God wants us to believe the previously infallibly taught doctrine, not the present non-infallibly taught doctrine. If we do not know about the previously infallibly taught doctrine, we will probably just accept what the Pope says. Provided this is a matter that we are not morally bound to know, God will excuse us for following the Pope into such an error. The Pope will be held responsible for that.

The same goes for the commands of the Pope, and other ecclesiastical superiors. We are to do what they say unless we know we would sin by doing so.

We are not supposed to "do the Pope's job" by trying to "check" everything he says. Ordinarily, as laity, we are to obey our confessor, who is to obey his superiors and so on until we arrive at the Pope. The ordinary principles of obedience to a superior apply. We obey in all lawful things, that is, whenever we are not certain that obeying the superior would be against God, that is, that we would commit a sin in obeying.

Personally I think the Pope at the moment says more things than can reasonably be expected to be read by each layman. I am content to read what the bishop says, and I trust he will let the faithful know if there's something they need to know.
Quote:The other hurdle along these lines is getting over the teaching that no one judges the pope.

“…Furthermore, if you do not listen to us [Rome], it remains that you be held by us as our Lord Jesus Christ enjoins us to hold those who refuse to hear the Church of God; especially since the privileges of the Roman Church confirmed in St. Peter by the words of Christ, ordained in the Church itself, observed from of old, proclaimed by the holy universal synods and ever venerated by the whole Church, can by no means be diminished, infringed, or altered, since no effort of man has power to remove a foundation which God has laid, and what God has established stands firm and unshakable….These privileges, then, were bestowed on this holy Church by Christ: they were not bestowed by the Synod but were merely proclaimed and held in veneration by them….it is immediately clear that the judgments of the Apostolic See, than which there is no greater authority, cannot be handled by any other tribunal, nor is it permissible for any to sit in judgement upon its decision…..”

(Pope Nicholas, Preposueramus Quidem, 865 AD, to the Emperor Michael, Epistle 8; Mansi xv. 196)

Thus according to Pope Nicholas, a decree of God's can't be diminished, infringed, or altered. The same though is bestowed on the church, judgments by the Holy See, and likewise the pope, can't be judged.
We cannot judge the Pope, he has no superior on Earth. However we do have the ability, inasmuch as concerns ourselves, to observe that a certain statement we read is a denial of an infallibly taught doctrine. If this were not the case, studying Catholic doctrine would be useless (because that would be equivalent to saying we cannot determine whether any given teaching is in agreement with the doctrine we study).
Quote:“The entire Church over the entire world knows that the Chair of Blessed Peter has the right to loose what has been bound by the sentences of any bishop whatsoever, as the See of Peter is entitled to jurisdiction over any Church, while no one is entitled to pass judgement on its decision, for the canons have permitted that appeals should be directed to it from all the world, but no one is permitted to appeal its decision….The Apostolic See has often had the freedom (facultas), without a Synod preceding it, to loose those whom a Synod had unjustly condemned, and also, if necessary, to condemn others without the convocation of a Synod….” (Patrologia Latina 59.66C, 67 B,C)

Reading this, it appears that the early church fathers believed that the pope can loose and bind any bishop, as the pope has jurisdiction over all the church, thus every Catholic.
Yes, but I really don't see how this would pose a problem.
Quote:My problem is this. We hold that the pope cant be judged by any man. We hold that the pope is also the final say on faith and morals.
The Pope can settle questions of faith and morals definitely, but he doesn't always do so. Sometimes he just comments on it as any private theologian, in a more or less informal way. We are not bound to accept such a comment the same way we have to accept a definitive judgment.
Quote:Thus, when we dont like a teaching (and what I mean by this is our opinion is that its counter to tradition and for me there is a long list such as the divorce remarriage, bad to spread the faith and convert others, the Eucharist to all that feel they should get it, a very long etc) we are holding the teachings of past popes and saints above that of the pope.
It would be a disorder if we were to prefer our personal opinion to what the Pope says. However, the things you mentioned are not mere opinions, they are matters that were settled long before we were born, often even explicitly in Sacred Scripture, or in the canons of Ecumenical Councils.

We don't have the right to pick a favourite historical Pope or bishop and prefer his judgment to that of the Pope, simply because we think he was more virtuous. However, we do have a right to prefer a doctrine in a certain magisterial act to that of the current Pope, because of the higher character of this particular magisterial act, compared to that of the current Pope.
[-] The following 2 users Like Marmot's post:
  • jovan66102, The Tax Collector
Reply


Messages In This Thread
R&R discussion - by Sword of St. Michael - 04-28-2021, 10:48 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-28-2021, 11:21 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Bataar - 04-28-2021, 02:43 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Adventus - 04-28-2021, 04:20 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-28-2021, 04:41 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-28-2021, 05:06 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-28-2021, 05:28 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Adventus - 04-28-2021, 05:41 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Marmot - 04-28-2021, 04:49 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Sword of St. Michael - 04-29-2021, 10:30 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Marmot - 04-29-2021, 11:33 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Sword of St. Michael - 04-29-2021, 03:36 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Marmot - 04-29-2021, 04:26 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-28-2021, 07:09 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-28-2021, 08:00 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-28-2021, 07:21 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-28-2021, 10:37 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-29-2021, 08:01 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-28-2021, 10:47 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by lukeg03 - 04-29-2021, 01:55 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Justin Tertius - 04-29-2021, 02:00 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by jovan66102 - 04-29-2021, 02:04 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Bataar - 04-29-2021, 11:26 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Marmot - 04-29-2021, 11:54 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by Adventus - 04-29-2021, 02:01 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by MacPasquale - 04-29-2021, 11:26 AM
RE: R&R discussion - by jovan66102 - 04-29-2021, 04:35 PM
RE: R&R discussion - by Memories_in_Rain - 04-29-2021, 04:50 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)