Dear sister Anna,
OK. So I was incorrect in assuming that your concern is to know how to identify the Truth. Your real problem is authority. Is that right? If so, then I assume you also have a problem with submitting to a bishop, not just the Pope? Or am I misunderstanding you again? Once, again, I request that you be frank.
Blessings
You are misunderstanding me again. See my response to gurney below.
It seems like some here are saying that the Ordinary magisterium, the pope’s opinions about things like women priests, sexuality, scientific ethics, etc. are infallible but we use our intellect to somehow know when what he’s teaching isn’t pertinent or just private opinion and we can diregard it? The pope’s private opinions are not infallible but how do we know when they are official or not? The Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. That’s a no-brainer. But the ordinary is more subject to interpretation and yet one must sign one’s will and intellect over to the braintrust in that regard. I find that unsettling as you do, Anna.
Magisterial language is so maliable. You can bend and mold it to fit anything? If you want to proclaim a pope’s opinion infallible, there’s always a way to spin it as such. And when a pope says something wacky, you can spin it as just private opinion not binding on the intellect of anyone?
I think it’s revealing watching how many Catholics on CAF think some things are infallible, others do not. There isn’t the unity they claim of one mind in these areas. I’ve observed that.
Gurney, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Indeed, when speaking of submission to Papal authority, the operative word is “malleable.”
In fact, the wording in LUMEN GENTIUM is really quite brilliant. The circumstances for submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff are so subjective; they can be used to dismiss a Papal teaching or to support a Papal teaching. Look at the criteria line by line:
**"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff,
even when he is not speaking ex cathedra;
that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to,
according to his manifest mind and will.
His mind and will in the matter may be known either from
the character of the documents,
from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine,
or from his manner of speaking."**
(
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)
What is the definition of “manner of speaking”?
How many times constitutes “frequent repetition of the same doctrine”?
How does one define “character of documents”?
And who decides if these criterion have been met? Are individual Catholics allowed to make this call? If yes, were are back to “private interpretation.”
Consider the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia quoted in my post # 52:
. . . Infallibility. . . .
In this article, the allegations against Pope Liberius were explained away and this was one of the “reasons” given:
“The all-important circumstance should be added that the pope so acted under pressure of a very cruel coercion, which at once deprives his action of any claim to be considered ex cathedra, and that he himself, as soon as he had recovered his liberty, made amends for the moral weakness he had been guilty of.”
The article uses a similar explanation for the actions of Pope Honorius:
" . . . .In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter’s misrepresentation of his opponents’ position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills."
IMO, the Catholic Encyclopedia should have omitted these excuses, because they do little to lend credibility to the defense of Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius. The historical debate regarding whether or not either of these Popes taught heresy is less of an issue for me, than how their actions are justified by the CC.
My concern lies in the concept of submitting mind and will to the Pope, especially in non-Ex Cathedra teachings. IOW, if I convert to Catholicism, I must submit/assent to Papal teachings whether spoken Ex Cathedra or not.
