Can a Catholic believe any thing they want during Papal Interregnum¹?

[forthright]

gusano:

What I meant was that Jesus said;
"Seek First the Kingdom of God and his Righteousness and he will give you everything else you need."…
He did not say **“Seek only **the Kimgdom of God…”

Neither did I indicate that Catholics must “only” seek the kingdom of God. Hobbies, pastimes, personal pursuits, etc. don’t exactly fall under the umbrella of “belief,” unless your pastimes happen to get into meditation, other religions, etc.

However, even in those cases, whatever truths you may find in another religion are also found in the Catholic Church. If you find something in another religion that is rejected by Catholicism, and if you maintain that this “something” is a truth, then you are simply not Catholic in the sense that you no longer hold to the deposit of faith.

This is what I meant when I said, “No, Catholics can’t believe just anything.” There are a lot of folks out there claiming to be Catholic, but simply aren’t because they reject essential elements of the faith. Whether they accept or reject something is purely voluntary, but their acceptance or rejection determines their catholicism.

(I’m not trying to imply that you’re not Catholic, by the way. I’m using the word “you” in a general sense. From your post, it sounds as though you’re completely faithful and simply avail yourself of the liberties available in certain areas of our faith.)

 

[Angainor]

JimG:

During an interregnum, authority rests with the magisterium, consisting of all the bishops of the Church.

The local bishop is, after all, the normal protector of the Faith in everyday life. Catholics don’t wake up each morning asking, “what has the pope said about faith and morals today?”

They don’t, because they already know what the Church teaches, through it’s 2000 year history of passing on the Faith.

(And for the same reason, Catholics don’t normally have to even look to their bishop for guidance in the ordinary course of their lives, since the teaching has been constant.)

In the end, the job of the Pope, the bishops, and the magisterium, is not to estabilsh the Faith, or the rules of morality and belief, but to faithfully hand on what was handed down to them, from Christ to the Apostles, to the bishops, through the ages.

Good answer.

I am still, however, trying to figure out exactly where authority lies.

Ordinarily, the only way to know the answer to a question, any question, (for certain) is to ask the Pope. Between Popes, how do you know the answer (for certain)?

 

[mercygate]

Angainor:

Good answer.

I am still, however, trying to figure out exactly where authority lies.

Ordinarily, the only way to know the answer to a question, any question, (for certain) is to ask the Pope. Between Popes, how do you know the answer (for certain)?

Remember, the teaching authority also lies with the Bishops teaching in union with the Pope. The Pope doesn’t make up stuff so that he’s the only bloke around who has any idea of what the teaching of the Church actually is. The Deposit of faith is well known and well understood by those (Bishops) whose job it is to take care of it.

Actually, the authority for certain “binding and loosing” tasks, such as approving new bishops, stands in abeyance until the election of a new Pope.

 

[gusano]

forthright:

Neither did I indicate that Catholics must “only” seek the kingdom of God. Hobbies, pastimes, personal pursuits, etc. don’t exactly fall under the umbrella of “belief,” unless your pastimes happen to get into meditation, other religions, etc.

However, even in those cases, whatever truths you may find in another religion are also found in the Catholic Church. If you find something in another religion that is rejected by Catholicism, and if you maintain that this “something” is a truth, then you are simply not Catholic in the sense that you no longer hold to the deposit of faith.

This is what I meant when I said, “No, Catholics can’t believe just anything.” There are a lot of folks out there claiming to be Catholic, but simply aren’t because they reject essential elements of the faith. Whether they accept or reject something is purely voluntary, but their acceptance or rejection determines their catholicism.

(I’m not trying to imply that you’re not Catholic, by the way. I’m using the word “you” in a general sense. From your post, it sounds as though you’re completely faithful and simply avail yourself of the liberties available in certain areas of our faith.)

I accept and appreciate what you say, ForthRight
I remember in a Liturgy when the Lector read; Heb. 9: 27
"Just as it is appointed that men should die once, and after that be judged."
after Mass at coffee we happened to sit together and a discussion came up,
The Lector was very excited that verse 27 totally wipes out “re-incarnation” and a Lady accross from me says
"How can that be because I believe in “reincarnation”?
He said "Where is it written authoritively that “re-incarnation” is true ? She couldn’t answer “AUTHORITIVELY” but only quote some book writers who were famous but not credible.
This Lady is a Catholic from Infancy, (Probably not Catechized).
Who could say she was NOT CATHOLIC?

There are many Fellow Catholics who are good open hearted people but also gullible, …Baptized but not Catechized.
free to believe anything from infancy onward .
It is just that no one has told them the Truth.
Mormons, Protestants and atheists too.

I believe THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is a “self correcting organism” (in time)
as long as a person does not “Harden his Heart” …as it says in Heb. 3: 7
“self correcting” …because Christ Himsalf is in it and guides it.

The Scriptures read in the Liturgy of the Word are what corrects us as long as our hearts are stil “moldable”
and when we surrender our hearts at the Altar, as we are invited to do; “Lift up your hearts”, … then

God can then come in and FORM US into a more fully Catholic Faith…GRACE upon GRACE, from Glory, to Glory.
Only if we PUT our BODY in the elevator , will the elevator take us to the top floor.

Only with a hardened heart do we lose our freedom.

I think maybe you and I are examining the same “QUARTER”
you see heads and I see tails. same quarter.
Don’t you agree ?


God Bless,

Gusano

 

[1962Missal]

Angainor:

I am trying to figure out exactly where authority exists when Peter’s chair is empty, and, why can’t authority always exist there?

Go read CCC 888-892. Catholics Bishops aren’t considered to be in schism during an interregnum, so the authority of the Magisterium continues. They are still “in communion” with the Petrine Office, even if it is vacant.

Justin

 

[thistle]

gusano:

I accept and appreciate what you say, ForthRight
I remember in a Liturgy when the Lector read; Heb. 9: 27
"Just as it is appointed that men should die once, and after that be judged."
after Mass at coffee we happened to sit together and a discussion came up,
The Lector was very excited that verse 27 totally wipes out “re-incarnation” and a Lady accross from me says
"How can that be because I believe in “reincarnation”?
He said "Where is it written authoritively that “re-incarnation” is true ? She couldn’t answer “AUTHORITIVELY” but only quote some book writers who were famous but not credible.
This Lady is a Catholic from Infancy, (Probably not Catechized).
Who could say she was NOT CATHOLIC?

There are many Fellow Catholics who are good open hearted people but also gullible, …Baptized but not Catechized.
free to believe anything from infancy onward .
It is just that no one has told them the Truth.
Mormons, Protestants and atheists too.

I believe THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is a “self correcting organism” (in time)
as long as a person does not “Harden his Heart” …as it says in Heb. 3: 7
“self correcting” …because Christ Himsalf is in it and guides it.

The Scriptures read in the Liturgy of the Word are what corrects us as long as our hearts are stil “moldable”
and when we surrender our hearts at the Altar, as we are invited to do; “Lift up your hearts”, … then

God can then come in and FORM US into a more fully Catholic Faith…GRACE upon GRACE, from Glory, to Glory.
Only if we PUT our BODY in the elevator , will the elevator take us to the top floor.

Only with a hardened heart do we lose our freedom.

I think maybe you and I are examining the same “QUARTER”
you see heads and I see tails. same quarter.
Don’t you agree ?


God Bless,

Gusano

What has this to do with the thread subject??

 

[richbansha]

Here is an interesting bit of related trivia:

We have all heard, “The king is dead. Long live the king!” in the movies. The fact is that it was an absolutely vital announcement in England when the king died.

Common Law held that the king was the source of all law. When the king died, there was no law in England. The first person to discover the body had to proclaim the new king so that law and order would be re-established. Since then, Parliament passed a law that provides for instantaneous succession – I think it was part of the Act of Union but am not sure.

That was English Common Law. I doubt that Canon Law or even the Justinian Code would cease to exist when the Pope or Emperor expired.

 

[1962Missal]

Angainor:

Ordinarily, the only way to know the answer to a question, any question, (for certain) is to ask the Pope. Between Popes, how do you know the answer (for certain)?

The only thing that is known ***for certain * ** are the truths pertaining to faith and morals contained in the deposit of the faith. Just as an intellectual exercise, can you give us an example of a question to which the answer must be a new dogmatic definition that cannot wait until the election of the new Pope?

Justin

 

[Angainor]

1962Missal:

The only thing that is known ***for certain ***are the truths pertaining to faith and morals contained in the deposit of the faith. Just as an intellectual exercise, can you give us an example of a question to which the answer must be a new dogmatic definition that cannot wait until the election of the new Pope?

Justin

How about “Do males have to be circumcised according to Jewish law”?

Who can tell me authoritatively if males must be circumcised if there is no pope to ask?

 

[BillyT92679]

Angainor:

How about “Do males have to be circumcised according to Jewish law”?

Who can tell me authoritatively if males must be circumcised if there is no pope to ask?

Because it comes from Holy Writ. The fifteenth Chapter of Acts, the Council of Jerusalem (the First Ecumenical Council of the Church)

Dogma and Doctrine are not based on the whims of the Holy Father, the Holy Father is the protector of Dogma and Doctrine and the Church declares definitively, after exhaustive study, what is right thinking. You’re sort of misinterpreting ecclesiology here.

 

[gusano]

thistle:

What has this to do with the thread subject??

It has to do with Can a Catholic believe anything they want doring… (any circumstance) ?
My answer is still yes.

why?
Because Jesus says ;"I will not break a bruised reed, I will not quench a smoldering wick."

There are many Catholics who are barely hanging on by a tiny thread of Truth they know amidst all the other error in their (our) beliefs.
We who claim to know and follow all the Truth …
should we exclude them from “Catholicism” and drive them away to other beliefs…
or should we gently tell them the Truth ?

The lady I mentioned in my post, after that conversation she abandoned her belief in "re-incarnation and got deeper into
the Catechumenate, the Teachings of the Church and the Bible and today she is a very solid, Informed Catholic.

John Paul II invited us all into The New Evangelization,
The Evangelization of all Baptized Catholics and anyone else God places on our path…
The Evangelization beginning with ourselves.

"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

gusano

 

[JimG]

Angainor:

Ordinarily, the only way to know the answer to a question, any question, (for certain) is to ask the Pope. Between Popes, how do you know the answer (for certain)?

I doubt that the Pope spends much (or any) of his day responding to doctrinal questions.

As noted by others, the deposit of Faith, having been handed down for centuries, is well known. Only when a question regarding faith or morals arises with respect to an issue that has not been addressed before, or when a response to a new situation arises, would the pope become intimately involved in responding to doctrinal questions. And then, if the situation required an in depth review of current doctrine and history, other theolgians in the Vatican would be called upon to study the matter before the pope made a decision.

Authority resides with Jesus Christ. He handed on that authority to the apostles, who in turn handed on both the authority and the teaching to subsequent bishops, under the leadership of the bishop of Rome.

But all in all, I would guess that the pope exercises this authority much less often on a day to day basis, than does, say, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. military, or even a corporate CEO.

 

[Angainor]

BillyT92679:

angainor:

Who can tell me authoritatively if males must be circumcised if there is no pope to ask?

Because it comes from Holy Writ. The fifteenth Chapter of Acts, the Council of Jerusalem (the First Ecumenical Council of the Church)

Dogma and Doctrine are not based on the whims of the Holy Father, the Holy Father is the protector of Dogma and Doctrine and the Church declares definitively, after exhaustive study, what is right thinking. You’re sort of misinterpreting ecclesiology here.

Are you saying the answer to my question is: you? You can authoritatively tell me that males need not be circumcised?

 

[RyanL]

Angainor:

Are you saying the answer to my question is: you? You can authoritatively tell me that males need not be circumcised?

The Church is not now nor ever was merely a single human being - you know this, but you’re trying to trap us in some silly little game. Frankly, I thought you were better than that.

In answer to your original question, the first pope, St. Peter, already gave you the answer. Would you try and play “mommy / daddy” games with the will of God? Then don’t try it during an interregnum.

What, exactly, are you trying to do with this thread?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[1962Missal]

Angainor:

How about “Do males have to be circumcised according to Jewish law”?

Who can tell me authoritatively if males must be circumcised if there is no pope to ask?

Since you seem to wish to ignore the decree and definition concerning circumcision promulgated by the Council of Jerusalem, ratified by Pope St. Peter I, then consider the following. The constant teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium is just as infallible are the solemn definitions of an Ecumenical Council or a Pope speaking ex cathedra. There’s just no solemn definition. Also, generally speaking, dogmas aren’t solemnly defined unless there is a serious questioning of some revealed truth. As there is no serious question among Christ’s Faithful as to whether Christ’s death and resurrection abrogated the ceremonial aspects of the Old Law, you can take the universal and constant teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium as being “for certain”.

Here:

lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory

The Catechism of the Council of Trent

CCC 1972 The New Law is called … a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law

Catechism of the Catholic Church

It is the universal and constant teaching of the Church that Circumcision is no longer required.

Now, can you envisage a situation in which an ex cathedra pronouncement would be necessary before the Conclave elects the new Pope?

Justin

 

[dafalax]

Angainor:

Are you saying the answer to my question is: you? You can authoritatively tell me that males need not be circumcised?

When we are between popes, doctrine is not authoritatively defined. I guess you’d just have to wait till the election was over to find out whether or not to get circumcised. Or you could actually just read your Bible. Or the Catechism. It’s not like even if there was a Pope elected, you could just go up to him and ask him a question. He has better things to do than answer stuff that has been answered for 2000 years.

 

[swnunley]

Analogous to this question would be, “Do we have to obey the law if the Chief of Police dies, and we haven’t elected a new one yet?”

 

[dafalax]

Here is a good analogy: say President Bush and Samuel Alito are on a golf course and both get struck by lightning and are killed. Who can authoritatively tell me who the next Supreme Court justice will be? No one until Dick Cheney gets sworn in and makes the selection. Does that mean Americans can do whatever they want until we have a new president? No, because the previous laws do not lose authority. So while the Pope has the authority to clarify doctrine and put out encyclicals, the ultimate authority lies with God, which is the authority that always exists you were looking for. I would say the Pope is even more under the authority of the law than the President, because a president with the agreement of Congress can change laws enacted by former presidents, but a pope cannot overrule a former pope on infallible matters. This is because infallible pronouncements are made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, something no pope may overrule and something that doesn’t disappear when our Holy Father passes away.
I’d also like to add that this answer could have easily been deduced by you, Angainor, if you had asked an HONEST question about Catholicism instead of thinking up a question hoping to make the Church sound foolish or inconsistent. That isn’t in the spirit of these forums, IMHO. :tsktsk:

 

[RobNY]

Angainor:

How about “Do males have to be circumcised according to Jewish law”?

Who can tell me authoritatively if males must be circumcised if there is no pope to ask?

This has already been answered by previous Popes and Church councils, Angainor. We hold fast to the traditions that have been handed on to us, do we not? The Church has already decreed authoritatively on these issues. Now, that decision could not have been made during an interregnum, but it already has been made (and for quite some years, as you know). You seem to be confusing the authority to make a decision with the authority to enforce it. The entire Church enforces what it teaches-- not just the Pope.

Are you trying to do a sort of reverse-authority question on us Catholics, kind of like how we try to do that Bible Alone/authority question on Protestants?

 

[Angainor]

dafalax:

Here is a good analogy: say President Bush and Samuel Alito are on a golf course and both get struck by lightning and are killed. Who can authoritatively tell me who the next Supreme Court justice will be? No one until Dick Cheney gets sworn in and makes the selection. Does that mean Americans can do whatever they want until we have a new president? No, because the previous laws do not lose authority. So while the Pope has the authority to clarify doctrine and put out encyclicals, the ultimate authority lies with God, which is the authority that always exists you were looking for. I would say the Pope is even more under the authority of the law than the President, because a president with the agreement of Congress can change laws enacted by former presidents, but a pope cannot overrule a former pope on infallible matters. This is because infallible pronouncements are made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, something no pope may overrule and something that doesn’t disappear when our Holy Father passes away.
I’d also like to add that this answer could have easily been deduced by you, Angainor, if you had asked an HONEST question about Catholicism instead of thinking up a question hoping to make the Church sound foolish or inconsistent. That isn’t in the spirit of these forums, IMHO. :tsktsk:

Very good answer dafalax. I especially liked your comparison to the rule of American law.

I agree with you that it is the underling law that holds true authority. I, however, do not believe Benedict is the infallible successor to any Apostle. So, if it is all the same to you, I will swear my allegiance to the underlying law as best I know it.