J
JReducation
Guest
As I go through these threads I find a constant request or demand on the part of many posters. “Show me an authoritative statement about . . .” or “That as not an infallible teaching; therefore . . . “
As I thought about it and went through my own years of study of theology and my many more years teaching theology I realized that compared to the questions that we raise, there are very few answers that are given via authoritative documents such as encyclicals, legal decrees, proclamations and only Ex Cathedra statements. I also realized that popes often speak about a revealed truth, which are obviously infallible, but what they say about it is not necessarily infallible. However, it is authoritative, because it comes from the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of St. Peter and the Pontiff.
I’ve also noticed that while many condemn “popolatry” they engage in what I call “Thomistic Dissent”. Allow me to explain. Everyone acknowledges that Thomas Aquinas was the Church’s theologian par excellence. However, There are some things that we must remember. First of all, we must remember how Thomas saw himself. He was a simple friar whose writing were the product of a life of intense prayer and service to others. His writings were the product of a life of contemplation. However, Thomas was faithful to the Church and obedient to the papacy. He attempted to answer the most pressing theological questions of history, not to dictate to the Church what she should believe or teach. In fact, Thomas never held a position of authority in the Church. He would be horrified to see how his work is quoted and used against papal teachings. He did not write for this purpose. He was trying to give the Church tools, not dictate to the Church or govern the Church. To use his writings to correct popes, is contrary to Thomas’ intent when he wrote. In addition, we know that Thomas made many theological mistakes. We also know that much of what Thomas wrote never became official teachings of the Church. Ultimately, it was the popes and the councils who defined what Catholics must believe and follow, not Thomas. It is true that they used a great deal from the writings of Thomas, because they were excellent, logical and easy to use. However, the Church also uses other resources, including the popes’ own thoughts on certain points of doctrine and morality.
It would make all of us very comfortable and help us to feel safer if we had an authoritative answer for every contingency that we encounter in the Christian journey. But the fact is that life does not work this way and neither does the Church. Even though the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, she cannot anticipate every possible situation that will arise. Some situations catch her by surprise. When that happens, it falls on those in authority to respond. Often that will be the pope himself, but not always.
The Roman Curia was created for this very reason. Popes cannot stay on top of everything that happens or on top of every question that arises. Popes delegate authority. They allow others to speak for them. These are usually the Prefects of the different congregations and the heads of different departments in the Curia. They also delegate a lot to the synods of bishops, to the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches and the Synods of those Churches that don’t have a synod. In the Western Church, Pope Benedict has laid aside his title as Patriarch of the West. We’re not really sure what that means for the future, because it has not been explained. But we know that he has delegated a great deal of authority to the local bishops, conferences of bishops, synods of bishops, general chapters of the major religious orders, and different committees.
The question that arises is, how ready are we to cooperate and to accept the authority of these different levels of authority that exist in the Church? Another question is, do we understand that authority does not have to invoke infallibility to command? Just as a parent need not be infallible to govern his home, the Pontiff as the father of the universal Church and the bishop as the father of the local church, have the same authority over their household as parents do in their own homes. Are we willing to obey their authority or do we set ourselves up as authorities evaluating everything they say or ask of us? I think that we have to remember that the only thing that we are not bound to obey is a command to sin.
Moral theology and logic have never said that we are free to disobey unless something is declared infallibly. We must be very careful not to put more restrictions on ecclesial authority than we put on our parents, our government, our military leaders and other authority figures in our lives. Sometimes it seems that this is what we do. We want ecclesial authority to come from the pope, to be infallible, to be commanded, not just encouraged, and we don’t want it to say things differently from how they were said in the past. Sometimes, things have to be said differently, because the way they were said in the past is being misunderstood in the present or the situations and audience was different or simply put, what was said is not binding on the reigning pontiff. A change in position is not a claim that the past was wrong. A change in position simply means that those conditions that existed back then do not exist today. Similar, but new ones exist.
I’d like to invite everyone to search their souls and their consciences and to ask ourselves, are our questions and demands for authoritative statements always reasonable or even honest or are we just looking to find a loophole to support our position? In other words, when we ask for authoritative proof, is it possible that some may be trying to manipulate Church teachings?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
As I thought about it and went through my own years of study of theology and my many more years teaching theology I realized that compared to the questions that we raise, there are very few answers that are given via authoritative documents such as encyclicals, legal decrees, proclamations and only Ex Cathedra statements. I also realized that popes often speak about a revealed truth, which are obviously infallible, but what they say about it is not necessarily infallible. However, it is authoritative, because it comes from the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of St. Peter and the Pontiff.
I’ve also noticed that while many condemn “popolatry” they engage in what I call “Thomistic Dissent”. Allow me to explain. Everyone acknowledges that Thomas Aquinas was the Church’s theologian par excellence. However, There are some things that we must remember. First of all, we must remember how Thomas saw himself. He was a simple friar whose writing were the product of a life of intense prayer and service to others. His writings were the product of a life of contemplation. However, Thomas was faithful to the Church and obedient to the papacy. He attempted to answer the most pressing theological questions of history, not to dictate to the Church what she should believe or teach. In fact, Thomas never held a position of authority in the Church. He would be horrified to see how his work is quoted and used against papal teachings. He did not write for this purpose. He was trying to give the Church tools, not dictate to the Church or govern the Church. To use his writings to correct popes, is contrary to Thomas’ intent when he wrote. In addition, we know that Thomas made many theological mistakes. We also know that much of what Thomas wrote never became official teachings of the Church. Ultimately, it was the popes and the councils who defined what Catholics must believe and follow, not Thomas. It is true that they used a great deal from the writings of Thomas, because they were excellent, logical and easy to use. However, the Church also uses other resources, including the popes’ own thoughts on certain points of doctrine and morality.
It would make all of us very comfortable and help us to feel safer if we had an authoritative answer for every contingency that we encounter in the Christian journey. But the fact is that life does not work this way and neither does the Church. Even though the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, she cannot anticipate every possible situation that will arise. Some situations catch her by surprise. When that happens, it falls on those in authority to respond. Often that will be the pope himself, but not always.
The Roman Curia was created for this very reason. Popes cannot stay on top of everything that happens or on top of every question that arises. Popes delegate authority. They allow others to speak for them. These are usually the Prefects of the different congregations and the heads of different departments in the Curia. They also delegate a lot to the synods of bishops, to the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches and the Synods of those Churches that don’t have a synod. In the Western Church, Pope Benedict has laid aside his title as Patriarch of the West. We’re not really sure what that means for the future, because it has not been explained. But we know that he has delegated a great deal of authority to the local bishops, conferences of bishops, synods of bishops, general chapters of the major religious orders, and different committees.
The question that arises is, how ready are we to cooperate and to accept the authority of these different levels of authority that exist in the Church? Another question is, do we understand that authority does not have to invoke infallibility to command? Just as a parent need not be infallible to govern his home, the Pontiff as the father of the universal Church and the bishop as the father of the local church, have the same authority over their household as parents do in their own homes. Are we willing to obey their authority or do we set ourselves up as authorities evaluating everything they say or ask of us? I think that we have to remember that the only thing that we are not bound to obey is a command to sin.
Moral theology and logic have never said that we are free to disobey unless something is declared infallibly. We must be very careful not to put more restrictions on ecclesial authority than we put on our parents, our government, our military leaders and other authority figures in our lives. Sometimes it seems that this is what we do. We want ecclesial authority to come from the pope, to be infallible, to be commanded, not just encouraged, and we don’t want it to say things differently from how they were said in the past. Sometimes, things have to be said differently, because the way they were said in the past is being misunderstood in the present or the situations and audience was different or simply put, what was said is not binding on the reigning pontiff. A change in position is not a claim that the past was wrong. A change in position simply means that those conditions that existed back then do not exist today. Similar, but new ones exist.
I’d like to invite everyone to search their souls and their consciences and to ask ourselves, are our questions and demands for authoritative statements always reasonable or even honest or are we just looking to find a loophole to support our position? In other words, when we ask for authoritative proof, is it possible that some may be trying to manipulate Church teachings?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
